Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
Yes, there is much information about him. I believe Alex's comments are applicable to him as well.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexander
right, because there are many other camps in many countries, notably pakistan, and the Chechen Republic, that train well and hard...
|
This is absolutely true and one can never underestimate how often this should be mentioned in American company. You'd think 9/11 would have given the US some bit of appreciation for the hardships countries like Russia and Israel have gone through in the face of terrorism, but more often than not I find the same US-centric attitude of "we're the only ones the terrorists are after".
Of course, the hijackers weren't Chechnyan rebels and they weren't trained in Chechnya. But, perhaps we should mention it as a possibility anyway. If you study the situation closely, you'll find Khalid Sheikh Mohammed once tried unsuccessfully to get into Chechnya. Moreover, Mohammed Atta (the ringleader of the 19 hijackers) almost, well... I'll let wiki tell:
Quote:
|
In late 1999, Atta, al-Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and Binalshibh decided to travel to Chechnya to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan over a two-week period in late November.
|
So, there clearly is an al-qaeda / Chechnya connection. You would have no idea of this looking at wikipedia's page on Chechnya. There's not one mention of al-Qaeda.
It wasn't until 2003 that the US declared Chechnyan rebel groups (such as SPIR and IIPB) as terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaeda
(1). And, yet, still no mention of al-Qaeda on wiki's Chechnya article
So, we might claim there are two problems here:
- American government has not done a good job of supporting Russia's efforts in Chechnya.
- People perhaps underestimate the al-Qaeda / Chechnya connection
The question is, should we mention Chechnya in discussion of the 9/11 attacks even if there is no substantial connection? The reason for doing this would be obvious - it would help with problems one and two above. In addition it would lessen the legitimacy of the international effort in Afghanistan which is a popular motivation.
But, I think there is a danger in doing this. If we imply a connection to 9/11 in order to substantiate or legitimize a war then the consequence could easily be fighting an illegitimate war. So, I'm not sure we should be talking about Chechnya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexander
I don't think that most of the facilitators of the 9/11 attack were or have ever even been a guerilla, or were ever trained in any such camp.
|
Very true. Take a look at my somewhat butchered organizational structure of the hijackers and their facilitators:
- Osama bin Laden
- Khalid Sheik Mohammed
- Abu Zubaydah
- Mohamed Atta
- “pilot hijackers”
- “muscle hijackers”
As Alex says, most of the hijackers weren't "guerrillas". Well, most of the hijackers were guerrillas (muscle hijackers) - most of the
instigators of the attack, most of the
"facilitators" were
not guerrillas. The guerrillas were trained in camps in Afghanistan, but the facilitators facilitated the plot from Afghanistan.
Take KSM as an example:
Quote:
Just as Mohammed was reestablishing himself in Afghanistan, bin Laden and his colleagues were also transplanting their operations to the same country. Abu Hafs al-Masri/Mohammed Atef, bin Laden's chief of operations, arranged a meeting between bin Laden and Mohammed in Tora Bora sometime in mid-1996, in which Mohammed outlined a plan that would eventually become the quadruple hijackings of 2001.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Afghanistan was the center of operations for the plot, but the higher-ups were not trained as "guerrillas" in the camps. They used Afghanistan as a safe base of operations to plan, coordinate, and support the attack. In other words: they may have trained the muscle hijackers there, but they themselves were not muscle hijackers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexander
The muscle parts could have been,
|
Yes, the 10 "muscle hijackers" were trained specifically for the 9/11 attacks in Afghanistan's camp al-Matar by trainer Abu Turab al Jordani and made videos personally thanking bin Laden for the training, but... they were just the muscle hijackers - just the "guerrillas". They weren't the facilitators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexander
but the rest came from Malaysia, Germany, etc,
|
The German cell... First off, it was a
German cell. Germany is not Afghanistan - not even close. The German cell wanted a bit of Jihad and they were in Germany.
Their plan was to go to Chechnya which, again, is not Afghanistan. They talked with Mohamedou Ould Slahi who was a well-known al-Qaeda operative in
Germany. Slahi convinced the "Hamburg cell" not to go to Chechnya as it would be too difficult to enter, but advised them to go to Afghanistan, and gave them info on how to accomplish entering the country and to meet-up with the right people.
Quote:
The name was a code word that instructed members of the Taliban office to escort the men to Kandahar, Afghanistan, where they were convinced to join the al-Qaeda network and wage jihad against America. They met with Osama bin Laden himself and swore their loyalty to him. Mohamed Atta al Sayed was chosen by Bin Laden as the leader of the group that would attack America; Atta would contact Bin Laden several more times before the attacks. The men then returned to Germany to enroll in flight training school, and later moved on to flight training schools in the United States
Hamburg cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
The role Afghanistan played here was recruitment, leadership, base of operations, convincing the cell to wage jihad against America, instructing them to the plan, and giving them the means to carry it out. They came "from" Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexander
in all reality, maybe a few hijackers were at some point in the training camps in Afghanistan,
|
"In all reality"... "maybe"... "a few"
I honestly want to look at this from the standpoint of impartiality and reason. Al-Qaeda is a world-wide terrorist organization. It has been financed from every country on the map and it recruits members from where it can. Al-Qaeda affiliates have attacked dozens of nations and some of those countries have lost more people to terrorism as a percentage of their population than has the US.
The US response in fighting the "war on terror" has been handled horrifically. There can be no excuse and the world has every right to fear and admonish the seemingly imperial impetus. But, in all that - we should not loose sight of the facts nor have bias against the truth. The truth is that Afghanistan was the center of operations for this attack. Pieces from all over the world came together in Afghanistan. The hijackers were recruited and trained there. Al-Qaeda leaders used it as a base and training ground for an army of terrorism. It makes no sense to claim otherwise.
I would
not claim that the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment is
not based out of Chechnya even if I disagreed with Russia's policies toward Chechnya. I would not claim that Hamas is not based out of Gaza or that Fatah is not based out of the West Bank even if I disagreed with Israel's policies toward Palestine. And, I would not claim that al-Qaeda was not based out of Afghanistan on September 11, 2001 regardless of my feelings about the US "war on terror".
~modest
) resistance/rebel leaders started appearing on the CIA lists of terrorists that were well-capable and inclined at some point to harm the US... (talking about Dzhokhar Dudaev and Shamil Basayev, Basayev for sure made the list)
