Despite carrying out spectacular attacks in Spain (March 2004) and England (July 2005), Al Qaeda .  .  .  .  Larry Johnson

What evidence is there that either attack was carried out by bin Laden's organization, an organization generally referred to as al Qaeda? 

 JASON BURKE , AUTHOR, “AL QAEDA” "There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist."

http://www.daanspeak.com/TranscriptPowerOfNightmares3.html

BBC The Powewr of Nightmares from BBC 2005

see also:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

excerpt episode 3:

VO: The suicide bombers had been recruited by bin Laden from the Islamist training camps in Afghanistan. But his and Zawahiri’s operation was very much on the fringes of the Islamist movement. The overwhelming majority of the fighters in these camps had nothing at all to do with bin Laden or international terrorism. They were training to fight régimes in their own countries, such as Uzbekistan, Kashmir, and Chechnia. Their aim was to establish Islamist societies in the Western world, and they had no interest in attacking America. Bin Laden helped fund some of the camps, and in return was allowed to look for volunteers for his operations. But a number of senior Islamists were against his new strategy, including members of Zawahiri’s own group, Islamic Jihad.

VO: The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organisation. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term “Al Qaeda” to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans have given it.

JASON BURKE , AUTHOR, “AL QAEDA” : The idea—which is critical to the FBI’s prosecution—that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.

Many, although not all, al-Qaeda operations have a common signature: multiple similar attacks in a relatively short period of time, involving time and space beyond the capabilities of a single cell. 9/11, two embassies in Africa, distributed small arms attacks in Saudi Arabia, multiple bombs on transportation systems in Spain and the UK. They are usually but not always suicide attacks, but seem much more purposeful in their targeting than the usual case in Israel. The logistics are such to suggest substantial, although not extreme, financing.

My impression has been that there is relatively little if any communications to "headquarters" after the cells are deployed, which seemed to be Libyan procedure and bad communications security. Many IRA bombings had an immediate claim of responsibility using an agreed code word, and sometimes gave a warning. Tamil Tiger suicide attacks usually targeted specific leaders and were more spectacular assassinations than generic terror

Guarantees it was al-Qaeda? No. In other words, we don't know, from open sources, that bin Laden was complicit in all. We can observe,however, that these attacks are consistent with a common pattern different than associated with other terrorist organizations.

Here's a few questions for Mr. Johnson (or anybody else):

1. Ledeen at NRO "reported" that his "sources" in Iran have said bin Laden died in December 05.  While I tend not to trust NRO, I would be interested in Mr. Johnson's thoughts about this subject.  Are the reports about bin Laden's health overexagerrated?  Has he been hanging out in Iran lately?
2. Has our definition of "chatter" changed or evolved over the last few years?  Is there any indication that chatter related to an attack has increased or decreased in the past few months? 
   
3. Some people have noted that the release date of the tape is 1/19, the reverse of 9/11.  Significant or a coincidence?   

Let's assume that Ledeen is wrong, and that OBL is still alive.  Aside from the loony assertions that Bush needs OBL to scare Americans, I would argue that it is not in our interest to actually capture OBL. Sure, his capture would be great as a symbol, but nothing else.  If we did capture him, we would encounter tremendous headaches of what to do with him.

Do we interrogate him? Sure.  But then all the "civil libertarians" would get upset at our treatment of him (no matter what it actually was).  

Do we put him on trial? Where? Europe would be outraged if we put him on trial in the US, especially since he would undoubtedly face the death penalty.  Then there is the issue of finding a dozen impartial jurors - and because of this accusations that he did not get a fair trial.  Would we put him on trial at the ICJ?  Its been 6 years for Milosevic and we aren't exactly close to concluding that one.  Additionally, such a trial would provide him with tremendous publicity - the very things that terrorists want.

And what happens if we can't convict (I imagine our intelligence services would not be thrilled to testify and give up "sources and methods" among other things)?

And if we do convict him he becomes even more of a hero to the jihadis (as well as the lunatic fringe of the left).

It seems that the best case would be if OBL were either captured or killed and that information kept secret. 

Albert, either this is sarcasm, or you really need the Thorazine dosage increased.

These are rather serious accusations to be made without any particular evidence.So, are you saying we should disbelieve Bush and his press secretary when they insist that bin Laden is not the primary focus of our so called war on terror? Don't you remember Bush dismissing questions about capturing bin Laden when he was beating the drum for an invasion of Iraq, when he said he had no interest in bin Laden? If you believe them, why do you insist that we are seriously looking for bin Laden? All I am saying is: 1. Let's take them at their word - bin Laden is not being seriously pursued. and, 2. Bush benefits by having bin Laden on the loose, an easily verifiable statement.

The only ones accusing Bush of ignoring bin Laden are Bush and his press secretary. And, lastly, yes I agree that that is a serious accusation.

It depends what you mean but connected?  Do you mean ordered and planned by Bin Laden, or inspired by Al Qaeda?  Or are you suggesting that these are all just random acts?  If you are what evidence do you have of that?

I take very little that Bush says at his word. At the same time, I want independent evidence that Bush isn't just ignoring him, but actively finds him useful.

Just a small thought to remind the group-

Had BushCo not taken their eye off the OBL in Avoidistan, to hurry us up into Iraq, we would not have to be playing find the bad guy with a blindfold and one hand tied behind our backs in Pakistan.

As no supporter of these power hungry crooks inhabiting the WH, Bush would've been my guy had he put enough troops into Avoidistan, and if OBL had headed for Pakistan told Mr. Pervez that either he could go get him or we could go get him, but somebody was going to get him.  And if Pakistanis had a problem with our troops going over the border, well, tough.  File a complaint at the U.N.

But this whole "respecting Pakistan's border" thing was and is foolish.  If BushCo was ready to invade a country a thousand miles from OBL on lies, then it is simply traitorous and impeachable to allow him to sit over the border and not make him priority #1.  And for all you conservatives out there who will parrot the talking point that Pakistan in an invaluable ally in the war on terror, save it.  We couldn't piss off a bunch of Muslims by coming across the border nearly as much as hitting the Eid celebration with hell-fires from drones.

So we'll see just how important the Homeland Security buffoons take this one.  How long will it be till Code Orange is declared again in DC???

If you say November,  you're probably on the mark. 

I want independent evidence that Bush isn't just ignoring him, but actively finds him useful.

Don't you think the irrational fear of al Qaeda and bin Laden is valuable to Bush? It has allowed him to achieve a second term in office. It has allowed him to play "commander in chief", ordering warrantless searches of American citizens, locking up other American citizens in hidden jails, without access to lawyers, without charges against them, and for indefinite times, it has allowed him to dispense US tax dollars to favored corporations on no-bid contracts, it allowed him to indulge his desire to invade Iraq, and on and on. Without the irrational fear none of the above could have been done. I acknowledge that I am not an independent, nor did I do research, but I have kept my eyes open and remembered what I saw. Where am I mistaken?

"Signature"?  Here's one.  Transportation.

All terrorist acts carried out by Muslims involving transportation are hereinafter defined as having been "directed" or "inspired" by al Qaeda.  Attacks on hotels, resorts, night clubs, and tourist attractions shall at all times be treated as homegrown initiatives.  Any attacks on embassies or legations shall be treated as attacks on transportation but only if the country attacked is then a member of the Coalition of the Willing.

Quite correct.  I was on a roll.  Nothing pisses me off more than the duplicitous and deceptive nature of the Paks.

Except, maybe, the duplicitous and deceptive nature of BushCo.

;<) 

It seems that the best case would be if OBL were either captured or killed and that information kept secret.

Why not just corner him and shoot him?  Then show the pictures: "See Bin Laden? See the hole in Bin Laden's head?  Look, he's dead."

Of course that may cause Americans to lose their zest for the War on Terror, and cut the funding for the War on Terror Industry.  And we wouldn't want that now, would we?

So yes, maybe we should just keep him locked up in some super secret government dungeon. 

for some reason, i am not being posted.

let's try it again, nudnik, specify why you think i need a jolt of thorazine.

Robert Fisk (for once, outside the paywall):

It's a game. Bin Laden has no intention of calling an end to his own war and nor has George Bush and nor has Tony Blair. The Bin Laden offer, almost certainly, is intended to be rejected. He wants Bush and Blair to refuse it. Then, after the next attack, will come the next audio tape. See what happens when you reject our ceasefire? We warned you. And we'll ask: is it him? So why no video tape? Never before in history have so many wanted men sent pictures and messages and video tapes out of the dark.

The irony, of course, is that Bin Laden is now partly irrelevant. He has created al-Qa'ida. His achievement - that word should be seen in context - is complete. Why bother hunting for him now? It's a bit like arresting the world's nuclear scientists after the invention of the atom bomb. The monster has been born. It's al-Qa'ida we have to deal with.

Not so much a tight organisation as a loose franchising deal; or, as Jason Burke called it, 'jihadi international'.

Larry's right to say that this is an explicit warning. And I'm not so cynical to think that there haven't been a few soiled pairs of pants in the White House today.