It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Osama likely in custody, says 'Father of Taliban'

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Osama likely in custody, says 'Father of Taliban'


www.gulf-times.com

OSAMA bin Laden is most likely alive and in the custody of intelligence agencies in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, said Pakistani Islamic scholar Maulana Sami ul-Haq, who is often referred to as the “Father of Taliban”.
“I don’t think Osama is on the run anymore or hiding anywhere in the region,” said Maulana ul-Haq.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
This article states the opinion of the "Father of the Taliban" What the true situation is I do not know but I hope other ATS'ers can tell us some more about this.

Question, is this how we know (sorry, expect) Osama to be releasing a new message soon?

www.gulf-times.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Edit: Sorry, I've just realized that the news article I was looking at is from 17th March 2008 (2 months old). Regardless, the actual article makes quite a few points that contradict Western MSM.

[edit on 18/5/08 by Rapacity]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The above article is quite long, some more of it is here.



Haq runs the Dar Uloom Haqqania madrassa (religious school) which produced most of the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, including their leader, Mullah Omar.
Haq is chancellor of Dar Uloom Haqqani school located in Akhor Khattak. The school, on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, is thought to have sent thousands of Mujahideen (fighters) during the Afghan War.
The Maulana challenged this charge. “More people from non-madrassa institutions and from abroad went to fight the Russian invasion, than madrassa students,” he said.
“After the Russian withdrawal, Afghanistan was mired in factional feuds. The Taliban movement gained strength because they filled the vacuum and cleansed the country of warlords, restored order, and eradicated the narcotics trade to unite the country,” he said.
“I think the movement aimed to end the chaos in Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Taliban was similar to other student-backed movements around the world - save for the violence,” added Maulana ul-Haq, who is also chairman, Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs in Pakistan’s Senate (upper house).
“Yes, the Taliban movement was violent and used force to capture much of Afghanistan, but do you think any other way was possible in a country marred by decades of wars,” he asked.
Explaining the role of madrassas and their operations, Maulana ul-Haq said: “A madrassa offers education, clothing, food and accommodation, all for free to its students, regardless of where they come from, and compared to the class-oriented commercial education system that the colonialists left behind in the region, madrassas remain a welfare institution.”



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   


“After the Russian withdrawal, Afghanistan was mired in factional feuds. The Taliban movement gained strength because they filled the vacuum and cleansed the country of warlords, restored order, and eradicated the narcotics trade to unite the country,


His explanation of the Taliban's role in Afghanistan is quite different to the orthodox version. I thought the Taliban encouraged narcotics production.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
If UBL was in custody we'd hear about it. The Bush administration would bring it out and let everyone know that it was a republican administration that caught him .. thus helping McCain in the Fall.

UBL is NOT caught. We'd definately hear it from Bush 43 if he were.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Not really. If Bin Laden was caught/killed, what would be our reason for continuing the war on terror?


"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."


This is a direct quote from Bush from 2002.

Right from the horse's mouth: he is not worried about Bin Laden.

He gives the foreign presence in the middle east more credence when he releases videos year after year blaming Israel and the US for all his problems.

You know its true.

It really doesn't matter if he's alive or dead, people will believe the propaganda videos the CIA releases for years to come.


[edit on 5/18/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You're assuming Politics outweighs Money, It doesn't, To sustain the Military Industrial Complex, Both sides need a Bogeyman, If they have him they won't say a damn thing, They'll most likely force him into making propaganda to feed the wars.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
C0le, I agree with pretty much everything you said. As Bin Laden was a CIA tactician before 911, I can't imagine he all of a sudden 'changed sides.'

He's probably making a pretty penny off this war as well (even though he's probably been dead since December 26th 2001) if he's still alive.

[edit on 5/18/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I wouldn't be suprised at all, but maybe he is just being 'watched;, no need to actually have him in custody, as long as he is aware of it.

It explains why they haven't officially caught him yet, and how he is able to survive and send messages to the west, hell, the CIA probably edit all his videos for him.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I am really surprised at this article, i really doubt if Bin Laden is in the custody of our Intelligence agencies, If he had been captured it would have been a Breaking News every where... isn't?

As far as Sami ul Haq is concerned he is nothing more than a political puppet who works for ISI on demand and I meant he is not typical Taliban Leader he is more into politics... He enjoys the benefits from Government and he has not been confrontational with the Govt of Pakistan.... i am surprised that he is being called the ' Father of Taliban ' He is just retarded politician .... having said that, He certainly has close ties with Taliban but i don't think mainstream Taliban would ever listen to him since they operate at their own and their Leader in Pakistan is ' Bait Ullah Masood ' this guy Haq is just a puppet...



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
If Bin Laden was caught/killed, what would be our reason for continuing the war on terror?

Good point.

But I think that there are enough other terrorists out there that they'd still be able to keep the War on Terror going. There are plenty of terrorists on this planet that want us dead.

I won't argue the legitimacy of the War on Terror.
We are on opposite sides on that and neither of us will change our point of view.

You have a point about UBL being at large means that the WOT would continue. But I say that ANY terrorist at large would mean that the WOT could continue.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
The war on terror is more than just Bin Laden. Just becausxe he would be captured or killed does not mean his movement would be over. there would be someone to step in his place immediately. Anyone who thinks there would be no reason to continue the WOT after Bin Laden's capture really doest know too much or understand how things work.

Just because a company loses a CEO does not mean that company does not exist anymore.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
There will always be terrorists. Our founding fathers were considered terrorists by the crown.

The 'war on terror' is a sham. No progress has been made in the middle east, in fact, the people who live there hate America more as a result of our incursions. If we had left them alone, perhaps we wouldn't be in the quagmire we like to call Iraq aka Sumeria.


You have a point about UBL being at large means that the WOT would continue. But I say that ANY terrorist at large would mean that the WOT could continue.


How do you define 'terrorist' though? One who seeks to create fear in a populace as a means to control it?

I could say the same about the politicians in Washington who keep Americans in fear by blaming the muslim religion.

They are keeping Americans in fear of attack from a foreign invader, when its clear that is simply not the case.

No one is going to invade the US anytime soon. Bin Laden and 'Al Qaeda' (al-ciada I mean) never had enough strength to attack the US. Neither did the Taliban, nor did Saddam Hussein.

Both great oceans protect us from attack.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rapacity


His explanation of the Taliban's role in Afghanistan is quite different to the orthodox version. I thought the Taliban encouraged narcotics production.


The Taliban decreased narcotics production to almost nothing when it was in power.

911review.com...


Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, the Taliban government had dramatically cut the production of opium -- the plant whose derivatives are the raw materials for heroin. The U.S.-led invasion, predicated on the idea that Osama bin Ladin had orchesrated the 9/11/01 attack, had the effect of restoring opium production to pre-2001 levels.


Interesting that Heroin/Opium production is up now, isn't it?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


i don't think so.

bush needs OBL to be free as the phantom terrorist, to keep the propaganda and fear alive, so he(they) can keep pushing their super profitable wars.

OBL is the boogie man. now, go to sleep, children, or he'll GET YOU!!
may the farce be with you.


[edit on 19-5-2008 by billybob]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by C0le
 


i see you said the same thing i did(although you spelled 'bogeyman' correctly.)

the WOT is really a WOF: War On Freedom.

a WOF in sheep's clothing, even. "RELAX, people! we are here to protect your freedom! now, bend over, this may hurt a little."



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I have been under the assumption that Osama Bin Laden has been dead for years.

However, in an article about Senator Barack Obama the War Monger, the webiste: Black Agenda Report, issue May 7 - May 13, 2008, they state that it is universally known that Osama Bin Laden lives in Waziristan in Western Pakinstan (paraphrased, not a direct quote).

I'm not sure if the information is accurate and I don't know who their sources are that have led them to believe this information.

www.blackagendareport.com



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kelbtalfenek

Originally posted by Rapacity


His explanation of the Taliban's role in Afghanistan is quite different to the orthodox version. I thought the Taliban encouraged narcotics production.


The Taliban decreased narcotics production to almost nothing when it was in power.

911review.com...


Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, the Taliban government had dramatically cut the production of opium -- the plant whose derivatives are the raw materials for heroin. The U.S.-led invasion, predicated on the idea that Osama bin Ladin had orchesrated the 9/11/01 attack, had the effect of restoring opium production to pre-2001 levels.


Interesting that Heroin/Opium production is up now, isn't it?


I heard somewhere that the military presence in Afghanistan had been told to leave Opium producers and fields untouched so as to gain allegiance from the growers. I dismissed it as fiction but seems there may be some truth it.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubyteacup
 


I remember being told by a friend from Pakistan (about a year after 911) that a convoy of military vehicles traveled from Afghanistan through Pakistan's western border region upto S.E Russia shortly after the US declared war on terror and expressed intention to attack Afghanistan. The same person told me that the US knew and assisted the convoy. Of course, it could have been someone/thing else being moved to safety but suspicion rests on it being OBL and Co.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
As Bin Laden was a CIA tactician before 911, I can't imagine he all of a sudden 'changed sides.'

I guess I haven't paid enough attention to the 911 forums.

Are you saying that Bin Laden might actually be a CIA operative? Is it possible that this whole perception of Bin Laden being our enemy is nothing but a construct?

Hmmm. That would be way way way above top secret.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join