WikiLeaks suggests 9/11 preplanned


WikiLeaks suggests 9/11 preplanned

Sultan M Hali

Of the virtual Tsunami released through the latest disclosure by WikiLeaks, the most dangerous is the revelation that United States officials in 1999 were pushing for a propaganda war, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against Osama bin Laden before the deadly terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. “It is our impression that the USG (United States Government) is not doing as well as it might projecting public diplomacy on Osama Bin Laden (OBL),” adding, “We would like to suggest that Washington consider a review of this public diplomacy effort.” Cautioning that pending distribution of OBL “wanted” posters and matchbooks in Pakistan may increase OBL’s stature as a kind of folk hero”, the State Department cable dated January 26, 1999. Noted, “We frequently hear reports that some in the lower middle and lower classes, both urban and rural, consider OBL (Osama bin Laden) an ‘Islamic Hero’, because the US has named him ‘Public Enemy Number One’.” “That said it’s our impression that the majority of Muslims, at least in Pakistan, do not necessarily support this view,” it stressed.

The cable outlined “effective methods” for a propaganda war against bin Laden through the Voice of America language services, interviews with bin Laden’s Muslim victims, commissioned articles in the local press and by virtual presence on the Internet. Arguing in favor of an anti-bin Laden website, the cable said, “Although that would appear to be counterintuitive - that the masses don’t use the Internet - almost all Islamic and Islamist groups do indeed have internet access and use it extensively.” “We are unlikely to make much inroad with OBL’s hard-core supporters because they are true-believers absolutists and tend to think and react emotionally: Facts are less important to them than emotions,” it said, noting, “They are not open to persuasion.” However, the American diplomat in Islamabad argued about a majority of Pakistanis, saying, “This middle ground, or at least somewhat susceptible to reason, or at least to other information, should be our primary target.” “The message crafted for them would also be welcomed by educated, westward-looking elite of both Pakistan and Afghanistan, who feel threatened by OBL’s advocacy and violence and theological obscurantism,” the cable said. “The focus of any enhanced USG public diplomacy effort should be to portray OBL and others around him as criminals, both by international and by Islamic standards. Where possible, responsibility of the movement al Qaeda should be emphasized, not just OBL (bin Laden) as an individual,” it said.

For the audiences in Afghanistan, the cable said, “When we focus on bin Laden, and especially for Afghan consumption, we should make three points: 1) The U.S. is not against Afghanistan and the Afghan people, 2) The U.S. is not against any particular any Afghan political faction, and 3) The U.S. wants OBL expelled from Afghanistan to a place where he can be brought to justice.”

The sensational WikiLeaks exposé has caused people to lend credence to the earlier rumour grist that 9/11 was an indigenous conspiracy, planned and executed by the United States to find an excuse for attacking and invading Afghanistan. The recent disclosure of the presence of precious metals in Afghanistan, the information of which the US had prior to 9/11, is a case in point. It has now come to the fore that The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials. The previously unknown deposits—including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium—are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys. The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said. While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war. “There is stunning potential here,” General David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview. The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion. However, it has now come to light that the US was in picture of the existence of the minerals before it invaded Afghanistan.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said. However, it is alarming that the US has orchestrated one of the oldest imperialistic façades of invading a country, it suspected contained rich minerals. It could thus be assured of having exclusive rights to mine the minerals and pocket the profits. If this is true, then the US has a lot to answer to the international court of justice, since its war machine has already slaughtered over 30,000 Afghans and despite suffering defeats at the hands of the Afghan resistance, it is reluctant to depart from Afghanistan.


Nice find, thanks!

While I hope other people are combing through the WikiLeaks documents to see what other documents related to 9/11 and the bogus war on terrorism may have been "leaked", to the extent that there is almost no information on these topics, I think it is another proof that WikiLeaks is a CIA propaganda operation.

I mean, the idea that uncomfortable questions about or issues related to the staged acts of terror that the US and the UK are perpetrating are not coming up at least indirectly in these diplomatic channels is really hard to believe.

Not Really....

Wikileaks itself has "suggested" nothing of the sort that 9/11 was pre-planned.

Importantly this documents fine print says this:

*The sensational WikiLeaks exposé has caused people to lend credence to the earlier rumour grist that 9/11 was an indigenous conspiracy, planned and executed by the United States to find an excuse for
attacking and invading Afghanistan.

The article essentially supports the "war" against Bin Laden (via propaganda or whatever) and really does not support the rational conclusions of research into the subject of 9/11.

Clinton could have killed Bin Laden and the CIA probably could have at anytime too.

Sorry but, we should end this documents headline quick!

Exactly. I sure as hell

Exactly. I sure as hell couldn't extract anything related to 9/11 Truth and Justice in this. (Anyway, what are the odds that the low-level dudes writing these e-mails, um, I mean "cables", would've been involved in 9/11?)

Alex Jones has been dubious about this WikiLeaks stuff from the start. The basic points are, (1) If the info is so shocking and subversive, then why is it all over every crevice of the mainstream media? (2) If the info is so shocking, then how come nobody actually talks about the info itself, they just argue about the morality of releasing it and, moreover, about the cult of personality with the guy who runs the company? (3) How come none of the info released by the company has lead to any serious repercussions for people in power? (4) How come the head of the company is hanging out with the heads of newspapers and TV stations if he's such a rebel?

Anyway, this WikiLeaks stuff is useless "info" (if it's not been doctored, it's at least been pre-screened by the government) and the media hysteria is another contrivance that people will forget in a month - just like Tiger Woods's girlfriends or Jon Benet Ramsey's non-killer or any of these other useless distractions.

(Once again, Alex Jones leads people down the logical and right direction, and MSNBC/CNN/Fox/NY Times/Washington Post are the pied pipers.)

Important exposures on deep corruption

With disinformation and manipulation of the MSM either side of this issue could be correct. I would not trust anyone too sure of themselves as to the answer. For myself, I am leaning that WikiLeaks is challenging the corrupt world political war system, and is exposing it.. So.. I will try to respond to your questions..

(1) If the info is so shocking and subversive, then why is it all over every crevice of the mainstream media?

Because the mainstream media is censoring or overwhelmed by all the significant information, but it is a powerful worldwide media story.

(2) If the info is so shocking, then how come nobody actually talks about the info itself, they just argue about the morality of releasing it and, moreover, about the cult of personality with the guy who runs the company?

You sort of supported my answer to number (1) with your second question, but there is an exception of one particular source covering the real issues of what has been released. I have been linking to these DN articles from Flyby News:

03 December 2010 - Democracy Now! - War and Peace
Is WikiLeaks' Julian Assange a Hero?: Glenn Greenwald Debates Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News

02 December 2010 - Democracy Now! - War and Peace
UN Special Rapporteur Juan Méndez::Instead of Focusing on Assange, U.S. Should Address WikiLeaks' Disclosures of Torture

02 December 2010 - Democracy Now! - Jeremy Scahill
WikiLeaks Cables Confirm Secret U.S. War Ops in Pakistan

01 December 2010 - Democracy Now! - Scott Horton
WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Tried to Thwart Spanish Probes of Gitmo Torture and CIA Rendition

01 December 2010
Leaked Cables Reveal U.S. Pressured Spain to Drop Case of Cameraman Killed in 2003 Attack on Journalists in Baghdad

30 November 2010 - Democracy Now! - Amy Goodman
Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership"

(3) How come none of the info released by the company has lead to any serious repercussions for people in power?

It has but mostly in other countries. The US public is totally controlled by the media spin of how dangerous this information is on national security. People are fear-controlled, mostly.

(4) How come the head of the company is hanging out with the heads of newspapers and TV stations if he's such a rebel?

Because he has manipulated the media by reaching out to many sources. Dan Ellsberg had success in doing this, too, when the government stopped the NY Times from reporting on the Pentagon Papers.

The wikileaks info is from not such a high source as the Pentagon Papers, but the volume as one explores our (sic) reality, still expose much behind the government push for war and deception.

Remember when John O'Neil quit under protest as an FBI Deputy Director because his pursuit of Osama bin Laden was interfered with by the Bush administration, so they gave him a position as head of security at the WTC where he was killed.

CNN: Wikileaks co-founder skeptical

"...leaked with an agenda...."
(video can not be embedded)

John Young was one of Wikileaks' early founders. Now he's one of the organization's more prominent critics....

John Young

was on the board of directors once, but he is not the "co-founder".

I don't know about the inner

I don't know about the inner bureaucracy of Wikileaks and precisely what John Young's role is. Having said that, I will suggest that everybody listen to John Young's interviews with Alex Jones (one of which is linked to below) because he comes across as supremely competent and knowledgeable, and he points out countless substantial reasons for suspicion with these astounding, amazing, Earth-shattering (according to the mainstream media, anyway) "leaks".

More significantly, John Young's site - - has way, way more interesting documents than anything I've seen at Wikileaks, and it does so on a tiny fraction of the budget.

Finally, I want to point out that, after the video of the helicopter massacre was released last winter, a Wikileaks representative from Iceland was interviewed by Alex Jones and she promised that they were on the cusp of releasing an even more violent video of an even bigger massacre in Afghanistan. Alex Jones asked her when it was going to be released, and she was bizarrely evasive. Of course, if they actually had such a video, they never did release it. (This was almost a year ago now.) Alex Jones shrewdly theorized that the initial video - which made them famous - was the one and only significant item that they ever released, and they just did that to get street cred (or rebel cred, I guess). Since then, everything that they've done - with great media and government fanfare - has supported the government line. Seriously: name one thing that Wikileaks has released that undermines the government's overarching themes - on Pakistan, Iran, or anything else. To the contrary, it all supports the neocons.

So, in short, the overwhelming impression that I've gotten is that I trust John Young and I don't trust the mainstream media's supposed rebel heroes, Wikileaks. That's just my opinion.


In my opinion the large majority of people commenting on Wikileaks don't understand hacker culture, the underlying technology, and the players, NGOs involved.

This impairs judgment, although it doesn't necessarily mean that an exchange of views on the issue is without value, nor is the issue really settled. As always, I disapprove of the impromptu snitchjacketing.

As for Alex Jones, I hate him and I love him, at the same time. An ad-hoc analysis on my part about how valuable or detrimental I think he is wouldn't do this complex, sometimes clownish, sometimes amiable muckraker justice.

I can vouch for one person who was the producer of "Collateral Murder", and that is Rop Gonggrijp.

I have followed this man's work for about twenty years. I read his magazine distributed through BBS and just floppies at hacker meetings. He's my hero. And he's not CIA.

Thank you for this..

Snowcrash . . I agree with you on this one. The bare-bone volume of information forcing a media madness for an international man-hunt, while he was not hiding from the authorities, is the real crime against international law and basic justice - no bond - for not wearing a condom??? it is a joke, right..? Thank you WikiLeaks, and 9/11 truth is slowly coming out from the cables as well.

The cables

reflect an American geostrategic standpoint, from American diplomats. It's no coincidence many of them make the United States look good and its allies and foes bad. What would a leaked batch of Russian cables look like?

There is much still to be said about Wikileaks, but like I said, at least I know who Rop Gonggrijp is, and I know I can trust him. I don't know as much about Assange's history, although I have no reason to suspect he's CIA. His accusers and detractors, however, are almost all tied to intelligence and/or the National Security apparatus.

Wikileaks is a conduit, not a source, yet many people blame Wikileaks for the materials it releases. I could blame Wikileaks for leaking/hosting the Climategate e-mails (which appeared in multiple places on the web simultaneously), since I'm not a climate denier, but then again Wikileaks isn't the source, it's the conduit.

What people need to understand about the underlying system used to transmit documents to Wikileaks is that it makes it deliberately impossible to know who the sender is. This system has existed for years and I have used it long before Wikileaks ever existed. In fact, I helped an Iranian bypass his country's web filter using it.

That is the weakest and the strongest link in the chain. If one has doubts about some of the cables released, for example, it would be prudent to find corroborating sources. In fact, that would be prudent even if one doesn't have doubts about some of the cables released.

If it turns out there are blatant fabrications among the cables which can't be explained away by taking a diplomats error of judgment or subjectivity into account, then we have a problem.

I reject, however, the ease with which Wikileaks (which is certainly not just Assange) is branded a CIA project, just because some people don't like Assange's opinion wrt 9/11 or don't like some of the materials released. Ultimately, the only way to know if somebody works for the CIA is to know somebody works for the CIA. It's that simple, because the definition of a CIA agent is not just "someone who disagrees with you", it usually takes a little bit more than that. If this journalistic rigor is not applied, you'll build a world view on a shaky foundation, which will one day collapse under the weight of its own self-contradictory conjecture.

"climate denier"?

Now that's an interesting term.

I have seen many reasons to be skeptical about the prevailing climate change wisdom and its financial underpinnings, but I don't regard myself as a "climate denier".


I think Carbon Tax and Cap & Trade are scams and fake solutions which serve to line the pockets of the state, by opportunistically exploiting the CO2 problem.

All I care about is that people acknowledge Beer-Lambert law and, moreover, that human activity emits approximately 32.3 Gt of CO2 per year, 40% of which is not absorbed by carbon sinks and thus contributes to the build-up of CO2. We know this, among other things, because of the decreasing concentrations of the carbon-14 isotope in the atmosphere, which indicates burning of fossil fuels. Unfortunately nuclear bomb testing made these measurements impossible years ago. However, satellites can measure the incoming and outgoing radiation, and compute the difference. There are other methods as well.

Now, real climate skeptics don't dispute AGW, they dispute the extent to which global warming models are exaggerated or not. So far, such criticisms are equally without merit, but to me, this is irrelevant, because the problem is bad enough even without factoring in feedbacks. (The earth's climate is a complex adaptive system)

Over the years, I've heard some really silly arguments protesting the scientific evidence. Example: carbon molecules are the building blocks of life and/or it's sun spot activity.

I refuse to go along with pseudoscience, whether it be 9/11, climate science, anthrax or evolution. Contrary to popular belief, however, science doesn't automatically favor the 'official narrative', which is one of the reasons why I'm here. But I strongly agree with Jon Gold that science is hardly the only area of interest w.r.t. 9/11. However, I also reject the "I'm not competent to judge the science" argument. Competence is a function of time and effort, and exact science isn't 'more difficult' than historical, economic, sociological, political or psychological analysis. I reject the notion that science is somehow out of bounds for 'normal people'. If it is, then the educational system is at fault, and we have a role in correcting it.

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclo

Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson. signed the following linked statement. Please feel welcome in joining this call for justice, and comment:

Is wikileaks being manipualted or are we?

I personally feel the MSM is manipulating the wikileaks cables by selecting mostly those which point to concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions etc. At this time I don't think Wikileaks is an intelligence operation per se, but the selective spin by the MSM is clear and obvious.

Here's a recent article a friend of mine just posted about Wikileaks and I think it outlines a somewhat different perspective. The main theme may be somewhat off topic but it includes some rarely discussed aspects of the disclosures etc.