«I can confirm that the US Embassy had all the information but for reasons best known to them, they never acted» – Paul Muite, former Member of Parliament in Kenya
As some have disputed the official September 11, bombing narrative (henceforth 9/11), the formal account of 1998 US Embassy Bombing in Nairobi collapsed after news emerged that Kenyan intelligence repeatedly warned the US embassy about the impending attack, but the US took no action, meaning it wanted the event to occur. The Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania was a curtain-raiser for the main act of 9/11 which enabled the US to drag its allies to the «Global War on Terror» that proceeds to date, leaving a trail of blood and misery from Central Asia through the Middle East to the North and West Africa. The US may have abetted Al Qaeda*, as history between both suggests long-term coordination to advance Washington’s interests.
Another thread of lies supporting America’s Global War on Terror (GWOT) broke on August 7, 2024, when Kenya’ Daily Nation revealed that the country’s intelligence had officially warned the US embassy of an impending attack, but the US refused to act, leading to a devastating Al Qaeda bombing 26 years ago. Earlier, Kenya’s standard newspaper featured Prudence Bushnell, the US ambassador to Kenya in 1998 narrating how her Embassy received information about the impending attack at least a year prior, but Washington did nothing to prevent the Attack. Mrs. Bushnell added that the information received was clear, and included an Al-Qaeda* informant presenting himself to the embassy and detailing how the attack would unfold. However, his account was dismissed after the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) consulted Israeli agents on the matter. Additionally, the US had other credible information in files and computer drives confiscated when an apartment linked to Al Qaeda* Operative was raided. Nonetheless, these materials were reportedly sealed and shipped to CIA headquarters in Langley, only to be opened after the attack a year later, and to reveal details matching how the attack occurred. Had such information been acted on, 213 and 5000 Kenyans would not have been killed and injured respectively. Why the US failed to act, which allowed such destruction remains to be answered.
Manufacturing Consent for GWOT
The US was building a case that there was a ‘global terror threat’ that needed a «global» war. Noteworthy, the 1998 twin Kenya -Tanzania embassy bombings were a crucial curtain-raiser for the Twin-Tower Bombing in New York, which in turn justified the GWOT. GWOT paradigm expressed in George Bush’s speech on October 11th, 2001, depicts the US leading the civilized world against «all those that seek to export terror and governments that support them», as a response to 9/11. Bush claimed that 9/11 «took place on American soil but was an attack on the heart and the soul of the civilized world». Therefore, the attack should be understood as the final performance in a series that included the 1998 bombings in east Africa. These events helped Washington to argue that the whole world faced an unpreventable threat of terrorism, and therefore needed to follow the US lead in preempting these threats. Surfacing of news that the US was warned of the impending attack on its Nairobi embassy but refused to act depicts how the events fit into this narrative, and that those who planned them coordinated closely with Washington.
Equally Dubious 9/11 Narrative
The official 9/11 narrative is so profoundly dubious that even the CIA-edited Wikipedia has created a page dedicated to questions that people raise, which it brands as conspiracies. Questions raised include why some rich stock traders sold off shares of airlines that were later involved, while others bought stocks of insurance firms covering later-to-be-attacked installations. Such strong evidence that these traders had foreknowledge of the attack is dismissed as conspiracy theories as opposed to being investigated. Talking of foreknowledge, the fact that the US embassy in Kenya knew of the impending August 7, 1998 bombing, but allowed Al Qaeda* to do its job shows that the event was in Washington’s interest. Still, if America’s official narrative that Al Qaeda* was responsible for attacks in East Africa, and 9/11, even the US authorities agreed that Washington’s actions created Al Qaeda making it harder for Washington to ever absolve itself of the responsibility for the terror group’s actions. Did Al Qaeda* turn against its creator, or do both parties coordinate their actions while acting as enemies? A statement by the acting assistant director of FBI’s counterterrorism department J.T Caruso stated that;
Al-Qaeda* «was developed by Usama Bin Laden and others in the early 1980’s to support the war effort in Afghanistan against the Soviets. … Trained Mujahedin fighters from Afghanistan began returning to such countries as Egypt, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia, with extensive “jihad” experience and the desire to continue the «jihad». This antagonism began to be refocused against the U.S. and its allies».
Mr. Caruso, in a perfect US-style of telling half-truths left out the fact that Bin Laden and other mujahedeen militants obtained the training he referred to through CIA’s Operation Cyclone in which the organization gathered, funded, and trained radical Islamists in insurgency, and terrorism. Otherwise, he should clarify where else they obtained these skills. His assertion that Al Qaeda* returnees refocused against the US and «Allies» leads one to wonder who they were focused to before. He should also explain how militants who dispersed to many countries (before the internet and the social media age) refocused to the same goal. What he could not say was that these terrorists were behaving exactly as trained in CIA programs, to covertly pursue their master’s goals. The master, Washington would claim they were a threat to him, a conclusion reinforced by how the US was unwilling to stop the group’s plots in Kenya, Tanzania, and the US but readily exploited the terrorists’ actions to advance his interest.
In Summary
The revelation that the US embassy had been officially warned of the impending attack of August 7th 1998, but ignored the warning closes the loop of responsibility between the US and Al Qaeda, showing coordination and connivance between both. The US leadership seems to have allowed the attack on its embassy to advance its interest. How the US used actions of Al Qaeda to advance its interest, while outwardly disavowing the group shows coordination between these parties. Noteworthy, the same Al Qaeda is revealed to have been started in Afghanistan by Mujahedeen fighters who were trained and armed by the CIA. Therefore, actions conducted by these CIA trainees in any location reflected the skills, equipment, and the interests of the trainer. The US cannot distance itself from Al Qaeda’s actions in Kenya, since it not only created, but also allowed this group to conduct attacks that advanced its interests. There is visible symbiosis, between both parties regardless of what each may say publicly.
Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
