Article

2004-02-23

Massoud was CIAâs best hope in Osama hunt

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-02-23 12:51:24 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Was that the news that triggered the go ahead for Atta and his crew?

Posted by Tokyo Taro 2004-2-23 3:04:14 AM|| 2004-2-23 3:04:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Yup.

Just like the assassination of Musharraf was supposed to precede another huge terrorist attack on the U.S. back in December. But, both were thwarted this time.

Makes a lot of sense...right before you kill several thousand kaffirs, rub out their main ally with whom they would have otherwise planned on using against you afterwards.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-2-23 3:57:34 AM|| 2004-2-23 3:57:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Massoud had many devoted followers before the assassination and even more afterword. I don't think that the Northern Alliance was too accommidating to the captured Arabs. I wonder if the two journaists were carrying Al Jezeera credentials.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-23 9:26:55 AM|| 2004-2-23 9:26:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 very interesting. Sooo...ok...going down that road...it follows that they intended to wipe out Musharraf before their next big event...and find it necessary to hold off striking until they do so. (However, I guess it could just be that the actual event of killing Musharraf or Massoud is the only way the cells know that it is time to act - rather than the other way around. )

If killing Massoud was a necessary first step to accomplish prior to 9-11, to protect the BL and the Taliban from a cooperative US/Massoud retaliation that they knew would be forthcoming...then killing Musharraf and destabilizing Pakistan will...?????... will what??

I'm having trouble saying this coherently...bear with me...but...doesn't their need to kill Musharraf first before they act, - tell us a lot about what they intend to do and what they expect us to do next ????

It just seems this logic tells us a whole lot about the current state of the battlefield - but I'm not sure exactly what.

can anybody see what I'm trying to say here and help me out a bit??? I've done it poorly - I know. What exactly does their need to kill Musharraf first tell us??

Posted by B 2004-2-23 10:07:50 AM|| 2004-2-23 10:07:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 B, I would say their need to kill Musharraf says that they are 1) expecting him to help us in any retaliation and more importantly, 2) destabilize Pakistan, take control and gain access to nukes. Pretty simple I'd say. Of course, there is a reason that Musharraf is allowing the US to provide or enhance the security of his nuclear arsenal. I'm guessing Bush gave him a choice, have nukes that we protect or we take away your toys. A couple stealths with some 2000 JDAMS could easily make his arsenal disappear.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-2-23 11:15:41 AM|| 2004-2-23 11:15:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 AHM - beat me to it - I go for door #2

Posted by Frank G 2004-2-23 11:19:23 AM|| 2004-2-23 11:19:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 B, I think TT and Anon are implying is that AQ plans a big strike and a political assasination in the country where they launched the attack from as a package deal. The object being to destabilize the forces that might aid our response. Whether these attacks are planned in parallel or in series is open to debate. The implied big attack in the US would have been the European Airline attack, which was thwarted. It would be interesting to know whether the Egyptian airline of French passangers that went down was some kind of dry run. As far as I know, nobody has claimed credit and the EU is implying poor aircraft maintenance.

Realistically, if Musharif is assasinated, Pakistan will fall into chaos and possibly become a Theocracy with nukes. AQ would like that very much.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-23 11:20:28 AM|| 2004-2-23 11:20:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 SH: Do you really think India (among a lot of others) would stand for that? It might do AQ a lot of good if Karachi goes up in nuclear smoke, but it wouldn't do much for the Pakistanis. Might be wise to pass that message along to them.

Posted by tu3031 2004-2-23 11:36:42 AM|| 2004-2-23 11:36:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 tu301, et al. There is a very good reason why the US has assisted in securing Pakistan's nuclear weapons. From what I understand, we have troops on the ground and the storage facilities. I know they were there, not sure if they are still there though. But I'm sure we are keeping very close tabs on those weapons. There is no way that this Administration will allow those weapons to fall into AQ's (or any whacked out theocracy) hands. I would guess there are several B2's hot in Guam with the GPS coordinates already punched in. The slightest sign of destabilization in Pakistan and those weapons are gone. Then again, we have a pretty good airlift capability in place in Afghanistan, perhaps the plan is to secure and remove them. Who knows, probably both plans are in place. Final word is no way those weapons survive the fall of Pakistan.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-2-23 12:29:41 PM|| 2004-2-23 12:29:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 This is the saddest part of the whole article:
The White House legal rules for liaison with Massoud had not addressed such pure military operations against bin Laden. The Massoud partnership was supposed to be about intelligence collection. Now the CIA had, in effect, provided intelligence for a rocket attack on Derunta. The CIA was legally complicit in Massoudâs operation, the lawyers feared, and the agency had no authority to be involved.
I think that the Clinton team thought that they could deal with OBL the same way that they dealt with their political opponents. Spread some innuendo. Start a few rumors. In their world view, a cruise missile attack was probably the equivalent of an attack ad. Amateurs always base their strategy on what they know rather than what's possible.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-2-23 12:34:05 PM|| 2004-2-23 12:34:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 TT, do you think that AQ would have called off the 9-11 attack had they known that the Taliban and Sadaam would both fall because of it? I think AQ would have proceeded even though the Taliban regime was a very AQ friendly operation. When your goal is the overthrow of all existing Islamic regimes why would you worry about a few Imans getting their their trip to heaven a little ahead of schedule?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-23 1:50:02 PM|| 2004-2-23 1:50:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Interesting comments....thanks for the insight.

Posted by B 2004-2-23 2:05:07 PM|| 2004-2-23 2:05:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 SuperHose

The two guys who killed Massoud weren't carrying Al Jazeera credentials. It is probable Massoud's men would have been wary of a such blatantly Islamosfascist media. They said they were sent by a London-based Arab paper (an obscure one). Since Massoud was willing to get some traction in the Arabic media who until then had either pro-taliban or unwilling to expose his views he was much too willing to give them an interview. At one point
they tried to board the helicopter Massoud and all his staff were travelling but they were repulsed (or perhaps the helo was complete). Had they succeeded they would have decapitated the entire NA and post 9/11 American retaliation would have been much more difficult.

As an aside they came through the territorry of Rasul Sayaf, a warlord memeber of the NA but also a wahabi. Rasul Sayaf said he had an afterthought and tried to warn Massoud but I dond't know if it is true.

Posted by JFM 2004-2-23 3:02:42 PM|| 2004-2-23 3:02:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 SuperHose

About your second post. Another point is that the Talivan weren't Arabs and thus second class people for bin Laden and Al Quaida.

Posted by JFM 2004-2-23 3:05:37 PM|| 2004-2-23 3:05:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Duhhh ....maybe why Massoud was whacked a day before 9-11 - because he was one of best chances in afganistan to capture binny..................... anyone who sticks to the point that we are not up against cordinated military style outfits is on a diff plane..........same plane as kerry when say's we have been misled, that the WOT is a police problem..what an asshole! so your gonna send the NYPD against iran???? the only thing the American people have been misled about is the danger terrorist have poised to the US for the entire 90's.....

Posted by Dan 2004-2-23 4:30:36 PM|| 2004-2-23 4:30:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Masood's two killers, posed as Belgian journalists and blew themselves up with Masood during a mock interview in September 2001.
See March 2002 article Belgium Arrests Suspect Tied to Masood Murder

Posted by GK 2004-2-23 6:41:25 PM|| 2004-2-23 6:41:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm late with this response but I'm closer to Pak land than you guys. It's tuesday morning here. Anyway, remember the US has the codes on Pak's nukes (that's trigger) so they are safe for the time being. Given time they could be recoded but it won't happen. Relax.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-2-23 6:59:22 PM|| 2004-2-23 6:59:22 PM|| Front Page Top

13:36 Anonymous4710
20:24 Annie Onymous
15:35 Daniel King
15:00 CrazyFool
08:36 Howard UK
23:56 PBMcL
23:49 Danny
23:40 Angie Schultz
23:33 GK
23:27 Danny
23:15 Danny
23:12 Pappy
23:11 Barbara Skolaut
23:10 Traveller
23:08 Barbara Skolaut
23:03 Barbara Skolaut
22:58 CrazyFool
22:54 JerseyMike
22:53 tu3031
22:52 CrazyFool
22:50 tu3031
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 phil_b
22:37 tu3031