Sorry, Tulkas, but you obviously have not read the stories. There is no "official" story, other than the one that is told through looking only at the headlines. Here are some of many of the contradictory versions of the story as told in the highest of high-profile media sources:
what was recovered?
[quote]Officials and the Qudoos family originally claimed that a single computer hard drive, documents, and US dollars were taken from the house. [AP, 3/2/03 (B), Australian Broadcasting Corp., 3/2/03] The family said the single computer had no Internet hookup, and the mentally impaired Ahmed Abdul Qudoos didn't know how to use it. [AP, 3/2/03 (B)] Soon it was reported that authorities were said to have "recovered a huge amount of information about al-Qaeda" from multiple computers, disks, cell phones and documents recovered with Mohammed. [Associated Press, 3/3/03] They very quickly "gleaned crucial information" from a "mother lode" of evidence. [Baltimore Sun, 3/3/03] But it was simultaneously reported that "the computers and cell phones seized during the arrest have not yielded the wealth of information that officials had hoped they would..." [ABC News, 3/3/03]
<hr></blockquote>
who was arrested with him?
[quote]A third man was supposedly arrested in the house with Ahmed Abdul Qudoos and Mohammed. Initially he was described as an Egyptian. [Reuters, 3/2/03] Later officials were suggesting he might be Saif Adel, Osama bin Laden's security chief. [Los Angeles Times, 3/3/03] Then, Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said the third man was Somali, but gave no details. [Reuters, 3/3/03] Most recently, senior US intelligence officials are claiming the third man is Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi, a native of Saudi Arabia. He is said to be the main money man behind the 9/11 attacks. [Reuters, 3/3/03 (C), MSNBC, 3/3/03, MSNBC, 3/3/03 (B)] As I have previously suggested elsewhere, and will discuss further below, considerable evidence suggests no such person by this name exists but was in fact an alias. Shortly after 9/11 it was reported that a man who had at least ten aliases, multiple birthdates, social security numbers and so forth transferred money to the hijackers using the name "Mustafa Ahmed." [Newsweek, 10/15/01] Why wouldn't he have used a better alias for such a transaction?
<hr></blockquote>
And it goes on and on and on like this, with references at the end of every sentence. It isn't even conjecture or speculation so much as it is a meta-analysis directly referencing the stories.
So now there is 'considerable evidence' that Al-Hawsawi doesn't exist, or more specifically, was simply an alias used by Saeed Sheikh (this is known), the convicted killer of Daniel Pearl. (Note: Saeed was very very crucial player in Al-Quada, as can be read here: <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/main/essaysaeed.html"; target="_blank">Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh</a>)
There is no official story. There is no concrete story. Officials even within the US government are saying contradictory things, so there isn't even an official story from the US government.
How ever, as is pointed out by every headline from the New York Times to the LA Times, the timing is extremely convenient for both the Bush Admin and Packistan.
Also, as pointed out by an intel agent, none of these arrests would have been announced in this way because it would have hindered futher efforts.
Here's a news flash: In many ways, Al-Quada is the ISI, and the ISI is the dominant force in Pakistan. The web is so intricate, I don't think we will ever know what's really going on. But one thing is for sure: the Bush admin is not in nearly as solid a position as they pretend. It is blatantly obvious that this arrest (or story of arrest) is being used for political purposes, which is not unexpected by anyone except the most vaive.
Even the threat warning might have been fabricated, as it has in the past (according even to Ari Fleischer)
[quote]The US was elevated to orange alert status for most of February 2002, the second highest category possible. Shortly after Mohammed was arrested, Newsweek reported that a February 26 intelligence report said Mohammed was actively involved in new terrorist plots in the continental US: "He has directed operatives to target bridges, gas stations, and power plants in a number of locations, including New York City." [Newsweek, 3/1/03] This was widely reported, and officials said this warning was partly responsible for the elevation of the alert status. [CBS News, 3/1/03, New York Times, 3/3/03] One AP article was even titled, "Mohammed's Plots Key To Recent Orange Alert." [Associated Press, 3/3/03]
If Mohammed is in fact dead or if he had already been captured in September 2002 or before, then the orange alert must have been fabricated. All the hysteria about duct tape would have been for nothing, except its political effect. It wouldn't have been the first time, as one can see from a February 13 ABC News article which was titled, "Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information." [ABC, 2/13/03] Some critics have speculated that the alert was raised to muster support for Bush and his plan for an Iraq war. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 2/23/03] One CBS article suggested, "There is considerable private speculation about whether the rising scare-o-meter is somehow playing into the march toward war." [CBS, 2/13/03] Rep. Robert Wexler (D) said, "It's clear that this administration uses the threat from terrorism for political purposes." He has suggested this has been a pattern for some time. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 2/23/03] One example would be May 2002, when a series of news reports exposed the Bush Administration's failings to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Within a matter of days, the administration released quite a number of terror warnings. [CNN, 5/20/02, Washington Post, 5/22/02, USA Today, 5/24/02] CBS noted, "Right now they're putting out all these warnings to change the subject from what was known prior to September 11 to what is known now." [Washington Post, 5/27/02] Other reports questioned the alerts [USA Today, 5/24/02, Time, 5/27/02], and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer even said at the time that the warnings were issued "as a result of all the controversy that took place last week." [Washington Times, 5/22/02]
Comments
what was recovered?
[quote]Officials and the Qudoos family originally claimed that a single computer hard drive, documents, and US dollars were taken from the house. [AP, 3/2/03 (B), Australian Broadcasting Corp., 3/2/03] The family said the single computer had no Internet hookup, and the mentally impaired Ahmed Abdul Qudoos didn't know how to use it. [AP, 3/2/03 (B)] Soon it was reported that authorities were said to have "recovered a huge amount of information about al-Qaeda" from multiple computers, disks, cell phones and documents recovered with Mohammed. [Associated Press, 3/3/03] They very quickly "gleaned crucial information" from a "mother lode" of evidence. [Baltimore Sun, 3/3/03] But it was simultaneously reported that "the computers and cell phones seized during the arrest have not yielded the wealth of information that officials had hoped they would..." [ABC News, 3/3/03]
<hr></blockquote>
who was arrested with him?
[quote]A third man was supposedly arrested in the house with Ahmed Abdul Qudoos and Mohammed. Initially he was described as an Egyptian. [Reuters, 3/2/03] Later officials were suggesting he might be Saif Adel, Osama bin Laden's security chief. [Los Angeles Times, 3/3/03] Then, Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said the third man was Somali, but gave no details. [Reuters, 3/3/03] Most recently, senior US intelligence officials are claiming the third man is Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi, a native of Saudi Arabia. He is said to be the main money man behind the 9/11 attacks. [Reuters, 3/3/03 (C), MSNBC, 3/3/03, MSNBC, 3/3/03 (B)] As I have previously suggested elsewhere, and will discuss further below, considerable evidence suggests no such person by this name exists but was in fact an alias. Shortly after 9/11 it was reported that a man who had at least ten aliases, multiple birthdates, social security numbers and so forth transferred money to the hijackers using the name "Mustafa Ahmed." [Newsweek, 10/15/01] Why wouldn't he have used a better alias for such a transaction?
<hr></blockquote>
And it goes on and on and on like this, with references at the end of every sentence. It isn't even conjecture or speculation so much as it is a meta-analysis directly referencing the stories.
So now there is 'considerable evidence' that Al-Hawsawi doesn't exist, or more specifically, was simply an alias used by Saeed Sheikh (this is known), the convicted killer of Daniel Pearl. (Note: Saeed was very very crucial player in Al-Quada, as can be read here: <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/main/essaysaeed.html"; target="_blank">Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh</a>)
There is no official story. There is no concrete story. Officials even within the US government are saying contradictory things, so there isn't even an official story from the US government.
How ever, as is pointed out by every headline from the New York Times to the LA Times, the timing is extremely convenient for both the Bush Admin and Packistan.
Also, as pointed out by an intel agent, none of these arrests would have been announced in this way because it would have hindered futher efforts.
Here's a news flash: In many ways, Al-Quada is the ISI, and the ISI is the dominant force in Pakistan. The web is so intricate, I don't think we will ever know what's really going on. But one thing is for sure: the Bush admin is not in nearly as solid a position as they pretend. It is blatantly obvious that this arrest (or story of arrest) is being used for political purposes, which is not unexpected by anyone except the most vaive.
Even the threat warning might have been fabricated, as it has in the past (according even to Ari Fleischer)
[quote]The US was elevated to orange alert status for most of February 2002, the second highest category possible. Shortly after Mohammed was arrested, Newsweek reported that a February 26 intelligence report said Mohammed was actively involved in new terrorist plots in the continental US: "He has directed operatives to target bridges, gas stations, and power plants in a number of locations, including New York City." [Newsweek, 3/1/03] This was widely reported, and officials said this warning was partly responsible for the elevation of the alert status. [CBS News, 3/1/03, New York Times, 3/3/03] One AP article was even titled, "Mohammed's Plots Key To Recent Orange Alert." [Associated Press, 3/3/03]
If Mohammed is in fact dead or if he had already been captured in September 2002 or before, then the orange alert must have been fabricated. All the hysteria about duct tape would have been for nothing, except its political effect. It wouldn't have been the first time, as one can see from a February 13 ABC News article which was titled, "Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information." [ABC, 2/13/03] Some critics have speculated that the alert was raised to muster support for Bush and his plan for an Iraq war. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 2/23/03] One CBS article suggested, "There is considerable private speculation about whether the rising scare-o-meter is somehow playing into the march toward war." [CBS, 2/13/03] Rep. Robert Wexler (D) said, "It's clear that this administration uses the threat from terrorism for political purposes." He has suggested this has been a pattern for some time. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 2/23/03] One example would be May 2002, when a series of news reports exposed the Bush Administration's failings to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Within a matter of days, the administration released quite a number of terror warnings. [CNN, 5/20/02, Washington Post, 5/22/02, USA Today, 5/24/02] CBS noted, "Right now they're putting out all these warnings to change the subject from what was known prior to September 11 to what is known now." [Washington Post, 5/27/02] Other reports questioned the alerts [USA Today, 5/24/02, Time, 5/27/02], and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer even said at the time that the warnings were issued "as a result of all the controversy that took place last week." [Washington Times, 5/22/02]
<hr></blockquote>
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>