* Next they’ll tell you that OBL & AQ is aÂ travelingÂ Rock & Roll Band:
Rabbi Shlomo Bin Laden: a Jew who gives Islam a bad name. Who guessed it?
* Yep. You can’t make this s#*t up. And he did it all to tarnish the good image of Islam. Â Trouble is, there are enough Jew-haters and conspiracy nuts among us who are only too eager to believe it.Â
* Just in thanks to Gramfan, Pak Daily News:
Al Queda may be a Jewish organization and Osama bin Laden may be Jewish. These are the two points I will try to make in this essay. This is not an attempt to foist blame on the Jews, to victimize them or scapegoat them, something that has occurred throughout history. It is not intended to be an attack on Jews or an exercise in anti-Semitism. It is however, intended to raise questions.
If indeed my contention is correct, that bin Laden is Jewish and al Queda is a Jewish organization, then it is also true that some conclusions can be drawn about Jews in general and about the religion, the ideology, and the social structure of Judaism vis-Ã -vis or from the perspective of non-Jews, especially about world Jewry as an organized social and political phenomenon which revolves around the modern-day nation-state of Israel, a country physically situated in the Middle East. It also says something about a social milieu that would allow such a phenomenon to occur within Judaism and world Jewry, again from a non-Jewish perspective. This is by no means intended to be all-inclusive. It is intended to equip non-Jews and Jews with a realistic perspective on the realm of the possible as well as provide a convincing argument that much of what is possible here in fact exists. This will no doubt be read, interpreted, and analyzed by Jews and non-Jews alike. Thus, what may prove to be a persuasive argument to some may well also fail to resonate entirely with others. Nor is this simply an exercise in rhetoric. I have written this piece to attempt to provide insight into the social ills of our present time. Caveat lector. The reader beware.
Much of the material for these conclusions was drawn from two books written by former counterterrorism security chief Richard A. Clarke. The two books are entitled Against All Enemies and The Scorpion’s Gate. I have also drawn from several other sources including Worse Than Watergate, by John W. Dean, III, The Two Faces of Islam, by Stephen Schwartz, and Ghost Wars, by Steve Coll.
The Living Are Here
In a book, audiocassette and video by Ayn Rand entitled We the Living, [link] the author captures the indomitable will to survive of the Jewish people [link] in the title, and then in a series of books, attempts to codify this “will” into her own philosophy, called Objectivism [link]. This came about in the aftermath of the Nazi Holocaust of World War II, when Jews in Europe were systematically rounded up and slaughtered by Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. One of the reactions to this event is a slogan we’ve all heard, “Never Again.” Never again would the Jews be slaughtered in such a fashion. But this is not the only by-product of the Holocaust. In my personal experience, it has also engendered a desire for revenge. My guess is that this occurs both on a conscious and an unconscious level, among many Jews, especially prominent Jews in the United States. Where does the anger go? In contrast to the Christian and Muslim teaching of “forgive and forget,” the Jewish mantra in this case is “never forget.” But that still does not answer the question, “Where does the anger go?”
While not forgetting, the task of the Jewish philosopher is to “enjoy” and to “live life to the fullest,” “–L’chai-em!” The existence of Jews today is thus celebrated by the phrase “We the living,” or the phrase, “The living are here.”
But the phrase “the living are here” is a declaration that can be made in several different languages. Putting aside the question of how many languages there are today on this planet, the principal languages of the Jewish people are relatively few. In addition to the principal world languages of English, French, German, Russian, Spanish, and Latin (now a “dead” language), one notices a prominence of Yiddish, Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Aramaic in Jewish cultural history today.
So when we say, “The living are here,” or “We the living,” we can say this in one or all of these languages or a combination thereof, and this can still be a contemporary proclamation of Jewish existence in the world today. Thus, for example, we might combine Hebrew and German in making the same utterance. Hebrew is of course the language of Israel. German is the language from which the survivors of the Holocaust emerged. Thus, the Hebrew-German combination makes the declaration, “The living are here,” all that much stronger. It is to say, in other words, “We, who are the children of Israel, and who have emerged out of the persecution of Nazi Germany, have once again emerged triumphant and steadfast, and we are here to claim what is rightfully ours, both as ordained by God and wrested with our own hands, in spite of Nazi Germany. We claim the right to be here â€“both in Israel and in Germany â€“and anywhere else we choose to be. We have conquered our adversaries. We will survive. And not even Nazi Germany can stop us!” This would be a strong statement, especially when made in German, because it also carries with it the tacit declaration, “In your face, Germany!” So if the statement, “the living are here” were translated into a combination of Hebrew and German, what would it look like? What would the utterance be?
Upon visiting the public library and consulting a Hebrew-English dictionary, I learned that “al chai” (pronounced “al-khai”) could mean “the” plus “living,” or, “the living” in Hebrew. I also learned that “da” translates “are here” in German. Thus, the phrase “The living are here” would be “al chai da.” Al Queda is also written “al-Qaida (Dean, Schwartz), which carries with it the same pronunciation as “al chai da.” Thus, depending on how you pronounce it, al Queda can mean “The living are here.”
My thesis is that al Queda, or al-Qaida (Dean, Schwartz) is a phrase that has a double meaning.
On the one hand, the meaning of the phrase “al Queda” is the conventionally understood meaning. It is a terrorist organization that is responsible for the September 11 attacks –or so we were told –and Osama bin laden is its head. It means “the foundation” in Arabic. This al Queda of course represents an international underground network of Arab Muslims who are involved in a jihad, or holy war, against the United States, Israel, and their allies. Or so we are told.
In reality, however, this is only partly true and it is only part of the story. The name al Queda is a recruiting tool. Yes, it is used to convey the name of an organization that in Arabic means “the foundation.” But it is what the phrase does that is important, not what it means. This phrase is used to induce, entice, and suborn young Arab Muslim males into joining a jihad and engaging in acts of terrorism. Both the phrase and the organization thus succeed in channeling hatred into violence –organized violence.
According to Richard A. Clarke in Against All Enemies, this al Queda is a Jewish organization created and operated by Jews loyal to Israel. This al Queda recruits, tempts, engenders hatred in, and then uses Arab Muslims. It engenders and then manipulates and channels this hatred in young Arab Muslim males and then directs it against targets of its own choosing in the form of violence. It uses religion –Wahhabi Islam, an aberrant form of Islam rejected by 90% of the Muslim world, to accomplish this end. Clarke argues that Wahhabi Islam was begun by Arab Jews and has been nourished, fostered, and promoted by the house of Saud since the 1700’s.
Clarke suggests that the Sauds are actually Jews living in Saudi Arabia under complete secrecy and under the cover of being nominally and outwardly Arab. Although it might sound like a contradiction in terms, Clarke also suggests that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian Jew. So is Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Intelligence, Saudi Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and Bandar’s father, the Saudi Minister of Defense, as described in Richard A. Clarke’s books, Against All Enemies and The Scorpion’s Gate.
Clarke implies that this “al Chai da” could possibly be the Israeli Mossad’s answer to anti-Israeli Arab terrorism. Instead of running away from or fighting Arab terrorism, the strategy here is to “take the bull by the horns,” to re-channel it, and control it. This strategy is to lead others into temptation, a notion that would be considered un-Christian because it conflicts with the part of the Lord’s Prayer which says, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, Amen.” But let’s not forget that the Jews are not Christian and Israel is not a Christian nation. Since the Lord’s Prayer assumes that Jesus is Lord, and Jews do not, there is no conflict. This is something most contemporary Christians and so-called Christians fail to realize. In rabbinical teaching, (rabbinical law), it is not considered immoral or contrary to God’s laws to lead someone else into temptation –especially when that “someone” is your adversary. The teaching is simple and clear: If you’re against me, I’ll take you down –any way I can. Period. The craftiest way is to use someone else’s energy against him, like in Tai-Chi. In this way, it is possible to lead someone to bring himself down rather than to have to resort to bringing someone else down yourself. The best part about doing it this way is, this method escapes the attention of the public view. To all appearances, you didn’t do anything; –they did it to themselves. In this way, the purpose of al Queda is to use the hatred of Arabs toward Israel against themselves in such a way that they bring themselves down. Thus, al Queda leads others into temptation and then uses or re-channels their hatred to kill others who are enemies of al Queda’s choosing. It uses the hatred of others (Arab Muslims) to induce or suborn them to kill and carry out acts of terrorism, and this killing is thereby done to serve those who control the organization –or think they control the organization. At least, that was the purpose of the organization when it was created.
When was al Queda created and how did it come about? Ah, that is another question, which I shall get to in a moment. But first, I wanted to show that there are two meanings of the phrase al Queda. This is the first: Al Queda is the terrorist organization behind the September 11 attacks. Or so we’ve been told.
The second and less well-known meaning of al Queda is “al-chai da,” The living are here. It is a proclamation of the indomitable Jewish spirit, from Abraham to post-Nazi Germany, and then to say “In your face, Germany!” This phrase holds a special significance when understood to mean, “The living are here” for contemporary Jews. Many uneducated Jews, however, have no clue of this meaning. The difficulty for Jews is that this meaning of the phrase can only be taught in a cult of secrecy. That certainly puts a damper on “spreading the word” to other Jews, especially to those who do not believe Jews need to live in secrecy. But for many Jews, living in secrecy is no big deal. Jews have been doing it for thousands of years for fear of persecution. And Saudi Arabian Jews (not a contradiction in terms) still live in secrecy today. To one extent or another, Jews live in secrecy everywhere, for the more Orthodox one’s views, (if one is Jewish), the more one lives at a variance with the prevailing views of society as a whole, except in Israel. As the world becomes more Orthodox, however, this of course is changing.
Osama bin Laden: The Saudi Arabian Jew?
Immediately after the September 11 attacks, President Bush let Osama bin Laden get away (along with over a hundred of his immediate relatives –all Saudi Arabian.) How is this possible? (See Fahrenheit 9/11).
President Bush then gave Osama bin Laden a two-months head start before going after him by invading and bombing Afghanistan. How is this possible? (See Richard Clarke’s’ recorded CNN interview on Fahrenheit 9/11).
At some point in the “hunt for al Queda,” President Bush adopted the attitude that he really didn’t give that much thought to Osama bin Laden or his whereabouts or apprehending him. Instead, the President insisted that, “He’s been marginalized.” How is this possible? (Fahrenheit 9/11). How is it possible that the man who is the head of a terrorist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks can somehow no longer be on the mind of a “war president?” (Fahrenheit 9/11). How is it possible that the President, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, can no longer feel it is important enough to keep this in the forefront of his mind? It is utterly incredible, but this is not only possible but actually the case.
The question then becomes, what motivations would George W. Bush have for doing these things? There are many. But few have managed to attract the public notice. The most logical explanation for President George W. Bush’s behavior with respect to these questions is: Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush were working together.
Now it is worthwhile to take a look at how al Queda originated and when it came into being. As Clarke explains in Against All Enemies, Osama bin Laden and his original “Army of Arabs” came into being when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan in 1986. At the time, they were called by various names: the Afghan Arabs, the Afghan warriors, the Afghan freedom fighters, the Afghan resistance movement, and the mujahedeen (or “muj” for short). They were armed by the CIA to repel the Soviets.
Richard A. Clarke, under the direction of several prominent American Jews loyal to Israel in high positions of the United States government during the Reagan administration and assisted by then-Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, armed Osama bin Laden and his “Army of Arabs.” (See Clarke, Against All Enemies). At the time, Richard A. Clarke was working in the State Department under the direction of Leslie Gelb and Morton Abramowitz. In the Department of Defense, Richard Perle and Caspar Weinberger were the decision-makers. Willam Casey was the head of the CIA. In Against All Enemies, Clarke describes how the United States government under the direction of these individuals, provided Osama bin Laden and his mujahedeen fighters with Stingers, U.S.-made shoulder-launched infrared seeking anti-aircraft missiles. Clarke says this tipped the scales in favor of the mujahedeen. The missiles were used to shoot down Soviet attack helicopters that were terrorizing the mujahedeen.
Clarke makes a conclusive case in Against All Enemies that the only way for these four prominent American Jews in the federal government at the time –Gelb, Abramowitz, Perle, and Weinberger –to have covertly equipped an “Army of Arabs” with Stinger missiles –is if the entire operation of mujahedeen fighters –the “Army of Arabs” –was run by Jews. The person at the top of the mujahedeen organization was Osama bin Laden. In the 1980’s, prominent American Jews were obsessed with Arabs. Israel was deathly afraid of them. My thesis here is that in this scenario, there is “no way in hell” that Leslie Gelb, Morton Abramowitz, Richard Perle, and Caspar Weinberger would have armed an “Army of Arabs” unless the Jews were in complete control of the entire operation.
Richard A. Clarke reveals in his book Against All Enemies that the idea for putting Osama bin Laden in charge as well as creating an “Army of Arabs” came from Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Turki Al-Faisal. Since the idea came from Prince Turki, in this scenario, Prince Turki would have also had to have been Jewish, and a Jew loyal to Israel.
At the conclusion of the “Arab Afghan War,” the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and his Arab Afghan freedom fighters (the mujahedeen) made off with the remaining Stingers under the cover of an explosion at the munitions site that “shook the nearby city of Rawalpindi for hours.”(My emphasis added -See Clarke, page 50, Against All Enemies). Clarke cautions the reader at the beginning of Against All Enemies by saying, “The close reader will note…” (Page xii.), but this also alerts the reader to the fact that he has concealed juicy details within the text that require a close reading to be fully understood. Obviously, if it was an explosion, it would not have “shook the nearby city of Rawalpindi for hours.” Clarke is careful to reveal facts that were reported –as they were reported. This protects him from the accusation of divulging classified material. The only explanation for ground-shaking to have occurred for hours is either a) there was an unusually long earthquake, or b) this shaking of the ground was caused by heavy trucks that were used to transport the artillery –including the Stingers. Clarke says on page 50 “some were not accounted for.” The only entity capable of making off with this cache of artillery in heavy trucks was the Soviets. The only logical explanation for this is that the KGB was behind it. Clarke says, “I could never prove that Soviet KGB had ordered these two acts… but I knew in my bones they had.” (Page 50). Two things. First, he all but says it was the Soviets. Second, he provides himself with an “out” by saying, “I knew in my bones.” This is an expression, but it can’t be taken literally for obvious reasons. (The locus of human knowledge is the brain, not one’s bones.)
This passage in Against All Enemies also contains a reference to U.S. Ambassador Arnold L. Raphel, who, along with the “military ruler of Pakistan” was killed in an “unexplained aircraft crash” immediately following the explosion that “shook the nearby city of Rawalpindi for hours.” Clarke explains this in The Scorpion’s Gate. He reveals by inference that the CIA retaliated against Arnold Raphel and the Pakistani ruler for the theft of the munitions dump, especially the Stingers. That means the CIA determined that they were also involved. Now we have Arnold Raphel, a very Jewish name, involved in the disappearance of the remaining Stingers. We have the KGB involvement. We have the military ruler of Pakistan involved. Here is my analysis on that: According to Clarke’s scenario, The KGB also had to have been controlled by Jews loyal to Israel, who aided the Jewish-controlled mujahedeen in making off with the weapons. The military ruler of Pakistan also had to be Jewish, and a Jew loyal to Israel. The CIA, smelling betrayal, assassinated both the military ruler of Pakistan and Ambassador Arnold Raphel in retaliation, as Clarke says in Against All Enemies.
Clarke reveals later in Against All Enemies how the Stingers turned up in Somalia and were used to shoot down a U.S. attack helicopter in the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident. By then, bin Laden was helping Somali warlord Farah Aideed. The implication or suggestion here is that Farah Aideed was also a Jew loyal to Israel, pretending to be Muslim.