Jihad, the Trail of Political Islam, by Gilles Kepel
Tim Howells
University Press, Cambridge, 2002, trans. Anthony F. Roberts.
Trying to play catch-up on the history of the Middle East, I
sought out the most authoritative book on Islamic
fundamentalism that I could find. I settled on this one.
The back cover features rave reviews from The Economist, the
New York Times Book Review, and Walter Laqueur writing in the
Atlantic Monthly. According to Laqueur, "'Jihad' is probably
the best introduction to Islamism currently available." My
interest was spurred by September 11. I am firmly convinced
that September 11 was a provocation engineered by elements in
the US and Israeli governments. I was interested to see how
this theory would hold up in the light of the best available
establishment thinking on Islamic fundamentalism. The bottom
line is that while Kepel is quite cautious about connecting
the dots, he views September 11 as a complete anomaly in the
context of Islamic terrorism, and he cautiously suggests that
bin Laden, if indeed the author of the attacks at all, may
have been acting on behalf of "wider groups" interested in
altering US foreign policy.
Kepel traces the history of Islamic fundamentalism and its
growth and decline as a response to Western imperialism.
The most fundamental challenge facing the Islamists was to
unite two very different and equally essential contituencies.
The urban poor and the educated middle class. The one big
success in this respect was Khomeini's revolution in Iran
in 1979. For a few years Khomeini was able through skillful
political maneuvers and propaganda to unite these groups into
the cohesive mass movement that overthrew the Shah, and
installed new regime based on radical Islam. This kind of
cohesion never took hold elsewhere however, and it long ago
was lost in Iran itself. Now the middle class there is as
brutally suppressed as it ever was under the Shah. Kepel
carefully documents how the Islamist movement has progressively
fallen apart since the great success in Iran, until by the
1990's it had become a marginalized movement confined to the
radical fringes of the urban poor.
Kepel is highly skeptical of the idea that bin Laden could have
built the powerful terrorist organization portrayed by the Bush
administration within the context of political Islam:
"The only two rogue states that had ever been able to
offer him any semblance of support - Turabi's Sudan
and the Taliban's Afghanistan - were impoverished
and dependent. Within the worldwide Islamic
fundamentalist movement at the end of the twentieth
century, the enthusiasm of the young urban poor
mobilized by the Pakistani religious parties and a
few others around the figure of bin Laden himself
seemed unlikely to turn into a powerful
infrastructure. As for the contributions of his
wealthy sympathizers, they had never obscured the
general distaste of the devout bourgeoisie for a
faction that attacks Riyadh and Washington head-on
and threatens a wide range of vested interests."
[page 319]
Kepel allows himself to speculate briefly on the real powers
behind September 11 and other related atrocities:
"Was it thinkable that, whatever bin Laden's
extremism, some wider groups willing to reshuffle
the U.S.-Saudi relationship would discreetly push
him forward, so as to send well-calculated advance
warnings - warnings, perhaps, that oil money should
go through different channels, that the great deal
that had been brokered on board the U.S.S. Quincy
in the aftermath of Yalta between Frankln D.
Roosevelt and King Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud should be
revised? And what had all this to do with the still
largely mysterious bombing of the World Trade
Center on February 26 1993?" [page 321]
OK, so here we have it from the most respected establishment
source available on Islamic fundamentalism. It seems highly
unlikely that September 11 can be explained as a product of
a genuine Islamist terrorist network. Kepel does not believe
that radical Islam was capable of anything remotely resembling
the attack on September 11. He cautiously suggests that the
terrorists were manipulated by major geopolitical powers
interested in drastically restructuring US foreign policy in
the Middle East.
Kepel's reference to the WTC bombing in 1993 pertains to his
doubts about the true perpetrators of that act as well.
According to the official story we have been fed, that act
of terrorism was the work of a terrorist cell based in
New Jersey headed by the "Blind Sheik", Adbel Rahman:
"In Jersey City, the sheik was surrounded by a circle
of poor Arab immigrants, black converts, and Muslims
from the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent who
were enthralled by his sermons but cut of from the
mass of American Muslims. It was in this small,
precarious world, infiltrated by agents provocateurs
and spies, that the first plan to destroy the World
Trade Center was hatched.
"The trials that followed the 1993 bombing of
the WTC established the identity of those directly
involved beyond any doubt. They were all close to
Sheik Abdel Rahman and all had been swayed by his
fiery sermons against America in particular and the
West in general. On the other hand, the contention
made by the American Justice Department that a wide
'conspiracy' had been masterminded by the sheik
himself was still open to doubt several years after
the fact. Quite apart from the practical
impossibility of a blind man picking out targets he
had never seen and could imagine only with great
difficulty, it is hard to believe that his accomplices,
who were anything but bright and had only the haziest
idea of the nature of American society, could have
imagined an attack of such spectacular proportions
without outside help. At the trial, the defense
stressed the role of an Egyptian informer infiltrated
into the group by the FBI, whose recorded
conversations with the accused showed that he openly
incited them to carry out the attack. [page 302]
So Kepel strongly suggests that not only September 11 but also
the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were carefully
planned provocations engineered by powerful forces - forces
capable, for example, of utilizing the FBI in the tradition of
COINTELPRO - i.e. forces within our own government. The Islamic
terrorists themselves were just fall guys.
Kepen stresses the isolation of the terrorists within the broader
Muslim community, and their vulnerability to cynical manipulation
by external political forces:
"To an even greater extent than in Egypt and Algeria,
the militants had engaged in terrorist violence (or
had allowed themselves to manipulated to that end)
without being in step with any kind of broader social
movement." [302 - 303]
Well I guess that about wraps it up. The most authoritative
source available on the history of Islamic fundamentalism is
one of us. He's a "wacky conspiracy theorist".
Gilles Kepel is Professor of Middle East Studies at the Institute
for Political Studies in Paris.
Tim Howells
Charles Farley
>
>I am firmly convinced that September 11 was a provocation
>engineered by elements in the US and Israeli governments.
>
>
>the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were carefully
>planned provocations engineered by powerful forces - forces
>capable, for example, of utilizing the FBI in the tradition of
>COINTELPRO - i.e. forces within our own government. The Islamic
>terrorists themselves were just fall guys.
Call the local mental hospital, tell them you have escaped.
Tim Howells
> Tim Howells wrote:
>> So Kepel strongly suggests that not only September 11 but also
>> the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were carefully
>> planned provocations engineered by powerful forces - forces
>> capable, for example, of utilizing the FBI in the tradition of
>> COINTELPRO - i.e. forces within our own government. The Islamic
>> terrorists themselves were just fall guys.
>
> Call the local mental hospital, tell them you have escaped.
Well, in fact those are my own opinions, but in this case I was
reporting the opinions of Professor Gilles Kepel, whose book
"Jihad, the Trail of Political Islam" is widely considered to
be the most authoritative source on Islamic fundamentalism and
terrorism. I'll repost my review in full below. Really you
should address your objections to these ideas to prof Kepel -
I'm just the messenger here.
Tim Howells
===============================================
"Jihad, the Trail of Political Islam", Gilles Kepel, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 2002, trans. Anthony F. Roberts.
Trying to play catch-up on the history of the Middle East, I
sought out the most authoritative book on Islamic
fundamentalism that I could find. I settled on this one.
The back cover features rave reviews from The Economist, the
New York Times Book Review, and Walter Laqueur writing in the
Atlantic Monthly. According to Laqueur, "'Jihad' is probably
the best introduction to Islamism currently available." My
interest was spurred by September 11. I am firmly convinced
that September 11 was a provocation engineered by elements in
the US and Israeli governments. I was interested to see how
this theory would hold up in the light of the best available
establishment thinking on Islamic fundamentalism. The bottom
line is that while Kepel is quite cautious about connecting
the dots, he views September 11 as a complete anomaly in the
context of Islamic terrorism, and he cautiously suggests that
bin Laden, if indeed the author of the attacks at all, may
have been acting on behalf of "wider groups" interested in
altering US foreign policy.
Kepel traces the history of Islamic fundamentalism and its
growth and decline as a response to Western imperialism.
The most fundamental challenge facing the Islamists was to
unite two very different and equally essential contituencies:
the urban poor and the educated middle class. The one big
success in this respect was Khomeini's revolution in Iran
in 1979. For a few years Khomeini was able through skillful
political maneuvers and propaganda to unite these groups into
the cohesive mass movement that overthrew the Shah, and
installed a new regime based on radical Islam. This kind of
unlikely that September 11 can be explained as the product of
a genuine Islamist terrorist network. Kepel does not believe
that radical Islam was capable of anything remotely resembling
the attack on September 11. He cautiously suggests that the
terrorists were manipulated by major geopolitical powers
interested in drastically restructuring US foreign policy in
the Middle East.
Kepel's reference to the WTC bombing in 1993 pertains to his
doubts about the true perpetrators of that act as well.
According to the official story we have been fed, that act
of terrorism was the work of a terrorist cell based in
New Jersey headed by the "Blind Sheik", Adbel Rahman:
"In Jersey City, the sheik was surrounded by a circle
of poor Arab immigrants, black converts, and Muslims
from the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent who
were enthralled by his sermons but cut off from the
So Kepel strongly suggests that not only September 11 but also
the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were carefully
planned provocations engineered by powerful forces - forces
capable, for example, of utilizing the FBI in the tradition of
COINTELPRO - i.e. forces within our own government. The Islamic
terrorists themselves were just fall guys.
Kepel stresses the isolation of the terrorists within the broader
Bud
That`s the great thing about being an American. We can convince
ourselves we can figure out anything, with very little information to
back up our contentions.
> I was interested to see how
> this theory would hold up in the light of the best available
> establishment thinking on Islamic fundamentalism. The bottom
> line is that while Kepel is quite cautious about connecting
> the dots, he views September 11 as a complete anomaly in the
> context of Islamic terrorism, and he cautiously suggests that
> bin Laden, if indeed the author of the attacks at all, may
> have been acting on behalf of "wider groups" interested in
> altering US foreign policy.
>
> Kepel traces the history of Islamic fundamentalism and its
> growth and decline as a response to Western imperialism.
Well, theres a shocker, he blames the West for Islamic
fundamentalism. At least he isn`t biased. Does he mention that it
could be Western ideas, like freedom of thought/speech/religion/ect
that they are rebelling against?
> The most fundamental challenge facing the Islamists was to
> unite two very different and equally essential contituencies:
> the urban poor and the educated middle class. The one big
> success in this respect was Khomeini's revolution in Iran
> in 1979. For a few years Khomeini was able through skillful
> political maneuvers and propaganda to unite these groups into
> the cohesive mass movement that overthrew the Shah, and
> installed a new regime based on radical Islam. This kind of
> cohesion never took hold elsewhere however,
I hope the author spent some time in the book to explain the
Sunni/Shite schism as a factor in the Iranian revolution not catching
on elsewhere.
Based on the jacket of his book?
> It seems highly
> unlikely that September 11 can be explained as the product of
> a genuine Islamist terrorist network. Kepel does not believe
> that radical Islam was capable of anything remotely resembling
> the attack on September 11. He cautiously suggests that the
> terrorists were manipulated by major geopolitical powers
> interested in drastically restructuring US foreign policy in
> the Middle East.
He "cautiously suggests"? Is that how you do it when you have
nothing to back up what you`re saying? People concerned that what they
are saying isn`t true should just shut the fuck up (you listening,
Artie?).
I super-strongly suggest that Kepel is a nut. Let him float his
wacky theories to the tadpoles in Paris.
>
> Kepel stresses the isolation of the terrorists within the broader
> Muslim community, and their vulnerability to cynical manipulation
> by external political forces:
>
> "To an even greater extent than in Egypt and Algeria,
> the militants had engaged in terrorist violence (or
> had allowed themselves to manipulated to that end)
> without being in step with any kind of broader social
> movement." [302 - 303]
>
> Well I guess that about wraps it up. The most authoritative
> source available on the history of Islamic fundamentalism is
> one of us.
I am foremost authority in the world at spotting assholes. Consider
Kepel spotted.
He's a "wacky conspiracy theorist".
He is that.
Tim Howells
> Tim Howells) wrote:
>> Charles Farley wrote:
>>> Tim Howells wrote:
>>>> So Kepel strongly suggests that not only September 11 but also
>>>> the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were carefully
>>>> planned provocations engineered by powerful forces - forces
>>>> capable, for example, of utilizing the FBI in the tradition of
>>>> COINTELPRO - i.e. forces within our own government. The Islamic
>>>> terrorists themselves were just fall guys.
>>>
>>> Call the local mental hospital, tell them you have escaped.
>>
>> Well, in fact those are my own opinions, but in this case I was
>> reporting the opinions of Professor Gilles Kepel, whose book
>> "Jihad, the Trail of Political Islam" is widely considered to
>> be the most authoritative source on Islamic fundamentalism and
>> terrorism. I'll repost my review in full below. Really you
>> should address your objections to these ideas to prof Kepel -
>> I'm just the messenger here.
>
> a "wacky conspiracy theorist". He is that.
I defy you to point out to me a more authoritative work on Islamic
fundamentalism than "Jihad, the Trail of Political Islam" by Gilles
Kepel. I'll append a collection of reviews. If you can point me
to a book that comes more highly recommended by knowledgable people
in this field, I will immediately purchase and read it. It is
obvious that you feel compelled to trash this work sight unseen
simply because you do not want to hear what Kepel is saying.
Tim Howells
====================================================
Here's the collection of review excerpts:
In Jihad Gilles Kepel offers a masterly display of scholarship that
describes how a radical idea spread through large segments of the Islamic
world in the 1970s and 1980s...Mr. Kepel leads us on a breathtaking
excursion. He trails the Islamist movements that have traversed Europe in
recent years, founding radical communities in France, Britain, Germany and
Belgium.
--Adrian Karatnycky, Wall Street Journal
An early and most perceptive student of [Islamism] was Gilles Kepel a
French political scientist who has traveled widely through the Muslim
world and has written about fundamentalism in both the East and the West.
He is also the best-known commentator on Islamic affairs on French
television, and he has advised international leaders at the Davos
conferences. In short, Kepel is not only a leading scholar but also a man
of the world...[Jihad] is probably the best introduction to Islamism
currently available.
--Walter Laqueur, Atlantic Monthly
[Kepel] is one of the world's leading experts on the Islamic resurgence:
[He] began doing fieldwork among fundamentalists in the Middle East in the
1970s, and he has remained attuned to their world ever since. Only a
handful of scholars can command as much authority, and none of these is as
bold as Kepel...Kepel's willingness to investigate the entire Muslim world
in a single volume helps us greatly in our attempt to understand al Qaeda,
whose tentacles extend into almost every Islamic country. The combination
of scope and expertise puts this book in a league of its own. Kepel
grounds his argument in a sophisticated analysis of inter-Muslim
relations. Given all the stale talk of a clash of civilizations, there is
a freshness to Kepel's focus on the international Muslim debate. We have
never been sufficiently aware that the primary architects of the Islamic
revolt against the West have regarded their struggle as a tool for gaining
power over fellow Muslims.
--Michael Scott Doran, Washington Post
Islam's radical politicalization had peaked long before September
11th...[Kepel] argues provocatively in a landmark book. So devastating and
unexpected was the September 11th attack on America that many people
concluded that Islamic extremism had become a threat of monstrous and
mushrooming proportions. That idea is deftly countered in this brilliant
and provocative book by a leading French specialist on modern Islam.
Gilles Kepel argues that the attack can only be understood in the light of
the rise and fall of political Islam, or Islamism as he calls it, over the
past quarter-century.
--The Economist
The author of several influential books on Islam, [Gilles Kepel has] spent
the last five years writing Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. September
11 gave him a new framework, but he sees that event in a way that will
surprise (and please) many who have lately been trying to comprehend the
meaning of Islamic politics...An usual commentator on recent events,
Professor Kepel is a messenger carrying good news.
--Robert Fulford, Toronto National and Financial Post
[T]here are few comprehensive and analytically sound books in the
Euro-American world that explain the recent ascendance of militant Islam
to the Western audience. This book by Kepel, a professor at the Institute
for Political Studies in Paris and a leading European specialist on
contemporary Islamic movements, is a welcome addition to the growing
literature on this topic. Meticulously researched and written in a
jargon-free narrative style, the book covers the trials and tribulations
of political Islam throughout the world...A standout in the field of
current books, this is a sophisticated and timely work that places the
events of September 11 in historical and sociopolitical context and sheds
greater light on the influence of Osama bin Laden and his movement. Highly
recommended.
--Nader Entessar, Library Journal
Jihad...will be a welcome respite for anyone who fears the fury associated
with militant Islam. Despite the terrorist attaches of September 11 and
the Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel, Gilles Kepel argues that the
trend is, in fact, now on its last legs. The violence is merely a
reflection of the movement's failure, not its success...[Kepel] comes to
this conclusion in a thoughtful and expansive chronicle of the
contemporary Islamist movement from Cairo to Kabul, from Kuala Lumpur all
the way to "Londonistan"...[This book] is a compelling read that makes an
appealing case.
--Robin Wright, New York Times Book Review
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/reviews/KEPJIH_R.html
Tim Howells
> Tim Howells wrote:
>> I am firmly convinced that September 11 was a provocation
>> engineered by elements in the US and Israeli governments.
> That`s the great thing about being an American. We can convince
> ourselves we can figure out anything, with very little information to
> back up our contentions.
I'll append a repost summarizing some of the evidence for this.
Tim Howells
============== REPOST ===============
SEPTEMBER 11, ISLAMIC JIHAD OR ANOTHER NORTHWOODS?
INTRODUCTION
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our highest and most responsible
military officers, proposed to commit acts of terrorism aimed
against U.S. citizens, designed to look as though they had been
the work of operatives of Fidel Castro. The object was to provide a
pretext for an invasion of Cuba. Among many imaginative proposals,
the Chiefs suggested:
"We could develop a communist cuban terror campaign in
the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in
Washington."
And further ...
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba ...
casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of
national indignation."
[ http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf ]
Although these plans were never carried out (they were rejected
by President Kennedy), similar proposals WERE actually implemented a
1970's and 1980's in Europe by the CIA, resulting in the deaths of
hundreds of innocent civilians. In one bombing of a busy train
station in Bologna Italy in 1980, 86 people were killed and over
200 wounded. The bombings were designed to look like the work of
communist extremists although they were in fact committed by right
wing extremists working under the direction of the CIA. The aim
of these operations was to whip up anticommunist sentiment among
our european allies.
[Arthur E. Rowse: Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian
Democracy. Covert Action Quarterly No. 49, Summer 1994.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html ]
Was September 11 a similar operation, mounted by elements of our own
government in order to whip up public support for an all out war
against the Arab states in the Middle East? The evidence strongly
suggests that this is the case.
My aim here is to provide a brief introduction to some of this
evidence with pointers for further reading.
[ Note: Throughout this post is deeply indebted to the timeline
compiled by the Cooperative Research Group (CGI). See:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/ ]
*******************************************************
OUTLINE:
I. The hijackers were not fanatical Islamic fundamentalists
(far from it).
A) They smoked and drank and partied hard.
B) Several of the hijackers had training at secure
military facilities in the United States
C) The hijackers operated quite openly, as if they
had powerful protectors in the U.S.
II. The hijackers were not capable of the feats of piloting
that are attributed to them.
III. The hijackers lead back to Pakistan's ISI, and through
the ISI, back to the CIA and the Bush administration.
A) Funding for the hijackers came from ISI Director
General Ahmad
B) On September 11 Ahmad was in Washington meeting
with key administration officials.
C) On September 12 the administration announced
Ahmad's agreement to collaborate in their
"War on Terrorism".
D) The ISI is not a tool of bin Laden - it's the
very much the other way around.
IV. FBI investigations that could have prevented September 11
were deliberately sabotaged by FBI Headquarters.
A) At least two FBI investigations were deliberately
stopped that could have prevented September 11.
B) The hijackers must have KNOWN that the FBI would
not investigate - they operated quite openly,
and even seemed to deliberately draw attention
to themselves as potential terrorists.
V. The anthrax attacks
A) No potential terrorists had access to the advanced,
"weaponized" form of anthrax used.
B) All suspects lead back to US or Israeli intelligence.
C) The crude misspellings and appeals to Allah and Islam
in the letters appear to be a hoax to blame this on
Arab terrorists.
VI. The ultra-rightwing agenda already in place for a war against
the Arab states.
VII. Conclusion - It appears that the September 11 attacks were
covertly instigated and supported by elements of our own
government to support an ultra-rightwing political and
military agenda.
VIII. Epilog - How could this happen? Some historical context.
*******************************************************
I. THE HIJACKERS WERE NOT FANATICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS
(FAR FROM IT).
The keystone of the "official story" on the events of September 11
is that the hijackers were fanatical Islamic fundamentalists,
opposed to all products of Western culture. They are presented to
us as pure warriors of Allah, prepared not only to kill, but to
die for their religion. Their supposed austere and ascetic
approach to life and death is presented us in the will and
testament of their leader, Mohammed Atta. We find here a long
list of severe admonitions including:
...
9. The person who will wash my body near my genitals must wear
gloves on his hands so he won't touch my genitals.
10. I want the clothes I wear to consist of three white pieces of
cloth, not to be made of silk or expensive material.
11. I don't want any women to go to my grave at all during my
funeral or on any occasion thereafter.
... [ etc. etc. etc. ]
[ http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_atta_will.html ]
It could hardly be otherwise; who other than a totally dedicated
religious fanatic would be capable of deliberately incinerating
himself in such a horrific manner together with several of his
closest comrades and thousands of innocent victims?
It was soon discovered that this image was completely false.
In fact, most of the hijackers were thoroughly americanized and
enjoyed quite wild, hedonistic lifestyles. Several of the them,
including the leader and "suicide pilot" Mohammed Atta, were
frequently seen out bar hopping, smoking and getting drunk.
They sometimes engaged lap-dancers and prostitutes:
http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010912/10103.html
http://www2.bostonherald.com/attack/investigation/ausprob10102001.htm
In Boston the night before the hijackings the WTC hijackers
tried to engage some prostitutes, but then backed out because
they decided it was too expensive:
These are not the actions of Islamic fanatics on their way to
die for Allah! It certainly appears that the hijackers did not
know that this was a suicide mission, and were not genuine
Islamic fundamentalists.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, mostly from wealthy families.
In fact, most of the hijackers are typical of the wealthy, high-
rolling, hedonistic Saudis who turn up over and over again in covert
operations sponsored by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and
George Bush Sr. and Jr. These scandals include Iran-Contra, the
Savings and Loan Scandal (by far the most massive financial rip-off
in history), the massive money-laundering that led to the collapse
of BCCI, a Pakistani bank with strong ties to the CIA, and, more
recently, the Enron scandal. The connection to U.S. intelligence
is more than speculative; several of the hijackers had training at
secure military installations in the U.S. The locations where the
hijackers received training include:
* The Pensacola Naval Station
* Lackland Air Force Base
* Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama
* Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama
* The Defense Language Institute in Monterey
http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
[ This is a long file. A string search on "military sources" will
take you to the right paragraph ]
There is further compelling evidence that the hijackers were in
fact recruits of the CIA based on the manner in which they obtained
their visas to live in the United States. The National Review has
published a careful study of this question that concludes that the
awarding of visas to these applicants is "inexplicable". This is
the strong consensus opinion of several government officials with
extensive hands-on experience with the process of issuing visas in
this part of the world:
All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for
human error, no more than a handful of the visa
applications should have managed to slip through the
cracks. Making the visa lapses even more inexplicable,
the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15
were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel,
one of the former consular officers who analyzed the
forms, declares that State's issuance of the visas
"amounts to criminal negligence."
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp
The great majority of the hijackers' visas, 15 of them, were
issued at the US consular office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Michael
Springman, formerly the head US consular officer in Jeddah has shed
light on how and why these visas were issued. According to
Springman:
"In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level
State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified
applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no
ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I
complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the
US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General
Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with
silence ...
"What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring
recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for
terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned
to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
So it certainly appears that at least 15 of the 19 hijackers were
CIA recruits, trained at secure military facilities in the United
States, and operating here under the protection and sponsorship
of the US government.
The hijackers' drinking and partying is certainly more typical of
youthful westernized military recruits than devout fundamentalist
Moslems. It is sometimes claimed that they were just pretending to
be westernized in order to "blend in" and escape detection. This
makes no sense at all. Even if they had been seen to be devout
Muslims, that would hardly make them terrorists. And they made
no attempt at all to hide their really suspicious activities, for
example shopping around for crop dusting equipment!
In one incident Mohammed Atta applied for a loan from the Department
of Agriculture to purchase a crop duster.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ross_bryant020606.html
In the first place, it's odd that Atta bothered with a loan at all,
since it's clear that the amount of the loan was pocket change to
the people funding him. Atta used his real name, and made sure the
interviewer spelled it correctly. During the interview, Atta praised
bin Laden as "the world's greatest leader", discussed the possibility
of blowing up U.S. landmarks, including the World Trade Center, and
generally behaved like a raving lunatic. Nice blending in!
In another incident Atta spoke with James Lester of South Florida
Crop Care in Belle Glade, Florida regarding the purchase of crop
dusting equipment. Again, Atta made sure that he would be
remembered: "I recognized him [after September 11] because he
stayed on my feet all the time. I just about had to push him away
from me." [AP, 9/15/01]
Far from trying to blend in, Atta operated quite openly and even
seems to have deliberately tried to draw attention to himself as
a potential terrorist. He acted as though he wanted to build a
"legend" as a terrorist, and as though he had guaranteed protection
from high inside the U.S. government. Evidence that this was in
fact the case will be discussed later.
II. THE HIJACKERS WERE NOT CAPABLE OF THE FEATS OF PILOTING
THAT ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THEM.
According to a group of highly qualified professional pilots who got
together to study this matter, the flying feats attributed to the
hijackers are not believable. The pilots concluded that "Those birds
either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being
maneuvered by remote control."
Regarding the possibility of flying commercial aircraft by remote
control, the expert pilots have this to say:
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill
(retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic
Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into
the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several
occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size
to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air
Force base in California to South Australia. According
to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path
under the control of a pilot in an outside station.
Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways
boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on
September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now
possible to control an aircraft in flight from either
the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert
witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners
could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio
frequency instrumentation from command and control
platforms based either in the air or at ground level.
The credentials of the pilots involved in this study are
impressive. In addition to Captain Hill there is an Air Force
Colonel, and a third Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties
during the Vietnam war. The group also includes professional
civilian aircraft pilots. The reporter verified their conclusions
with an independent expert:
THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the
potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an
Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20
years of experience in flying passenger planes, to
seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently
flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the
independent commission's findings. However, he
explained that while it is possible to fly a plane
from the ground, the installation of the necessary
equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs
extensive planning.
On the other hand, there has been a published report of an
interview with a professional pilot who argues that it would
NOT have been too difficult for hijackers to fly the airliners.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551778,00.html
It should be possible to resolve these questions conclusively in
the context of a complete investigation of exactly what happened
on September 11 and how such a thing could occur. Unfortunately,
the US government is strongly resisting conducting any such
investigation. In any event, the question remains that even if
the hijackers COULD have flown those aircraft (an idea that most
professional pilots who have expressed themselves on this issue
reject), why WOULD they have done it? Given that the hijackers
were certainly not fanatical Islamic fundamentalists, why would
they accept a suicide mission, especially such a horrific one?
The remote control theory, which no one disputes is a possiblity,
provides an alternative explanation, that does not require that
the hijackers were religious fanatics who knowingly volunteered
for a suicide mission.
III. THE HIJACKERS LEAD BACK TO PAKISTAN'S ISI, AND THROUGH
THE ISI, BACK TO THE US INTELLIGENCE ESTABLISHMENT.
There is no doubt about who the immediate sponsor of the 9/11
hijackers was. In at least one case they received their funding
directly from the top man in the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence
agency. The ISI has long been a heavily funded CIA client and one
of our staunchest allies, first in the prolonged guerilla war
against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and now in the so called "War
on Terrorism". And yet we know now that in the summer of 2000 ISI
Director General Mahmud Ahmad ordered his aide Saeed Sheikh to
transfer $100,000 to the leader of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta,
and that this was done via two banks in Florida.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/09/top13.htm
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298
On the day of September 11 Director General Ahmad, Mohammed Atta's
paymaster, was in Washington meeting with the chairmen of the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/politics/04INQU.html?todaysheadlines
Conveniently this allowed him to confer directly with Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage the following day, and
soon Secretary of State Colin Powell was announcing Pakistan's
cooperation in our campaign to bring the perpetrators of the
attacks to justice.
http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2001/nyt091301.html
The fact that one of our foremost allies in the "War on Terrorism"
was in fact the sponsor of the 9/11 terrorists was uncovered by
Indian intelligence and confirmed by the FBI in early October, just
a few weeks after the attacks.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
At this point Ahmad quietly retired, and disappeared from the
limelight. WHY HAS THE SPONSOR OF THE 9/11 HIJACKERS BEEN ALLOWED
TO SLIP AWAY LIKE THIS? Where is the swift and terrible retribution
promised us on so many occasions by our President? Why was Ahmad
not immediately taken into custody and brought to the United States
for intensive questioning to uncover further links in the chain?
The answer is obvious and unavoidable to anyone reading this with an
open mind. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT *WANT* TO UNCOVER WHERE
THIS MOST SIGNIFICANT LINK IN THE COMMAND CHAIN BEHIND THE EVENTS OF
SEPTEMBER 11 LEADS.
Since the administrations of Reagan and George Bush Sr. the ISI
has been a major CIA client and has acted on our behalf first to
organize and command the Afghan resistance forces in the war with
the Soviets, and later to set up the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden was recruited by the ISI, because they wanted
someone who represented the Saudi elite as part of their Afghan
effort for public relations purposes. The ISI initially tried to
find a member of the Saudi royal family, but they were happy to
settle for a member of the bin Laden family, one of the richest in
Saudi Arabia:
The total control that the ISI and the CIA exercised over bin Laden
and their other surrogates in the Afghan conflict is witnessed,
among many other things by the planning of the attack on Jalalabad,
the most significant offensive for the guerillas in the entire war:
Typical of the war's overall conduct, the attack [on
Jalalabad in March 1989] was planned at a meeting in
Islamabad [Pakistan] attended by U.S. Ambassador Robert
Oakley, senior Pakistani officials, and not a single
Afghan.
["The Politics of Heroin, CIA Complicity in the Global
Drug Trade", Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books, NY
1991, pg 452]
The pattern then is clear and has been well established for
decades. The U.S. acting through the CIA sets the agenda and
provides the money. The ISI acts as our agent in this part of the
world, selecting local proxies and orchestrating the activities of
the guerilla warlords. The guerilla leaders themselves, including
Osama bin Laden, are merely pawns in the game. George Bush Sr.
as Vice President personally traveled to Pakistan in 1984 to cement
these relations ["The Outlaw Bank", Beaty & Gwynne, Random House,
NY, 1993. pg. 317].
Bin Laden's dependence on the ISI is just as strong now as it ever
was. According to Jane's Intelligence Digest in an article
written shortly after the September 11 attacks, "both the Taliban
and Al-Qa'eda would have found it difficult to have continued
functioning - including the latter group's terrorist activities -
without substantial aid and support from Islamabad."
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid010920_1_n.shtml
Equally, the ISI's alliance with the CIA is as strong as ever.
Milton Bearden, a former CIA. station chief in Pakistan who has
worked closely with ISI recently defended the alliance, describing
Pakistan as "the only country in South Asia that always did what
we asked."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.28G.NYer.Escape.htm
Therefore it is highly implausible that ISI Inspector General Ahmad
was acting as an operative for bin Laden when he funded the
September 11 hijackers; the chain of command works in the opposite
direction. It is also highly implausible that Ahmad would have
chosen on his own initiative to attack the United States, his own
best ally and his primary source of funding and technology.
Anyone who seriously wants to see the perpetrators of September 11
tracked down and brought to justice should urgently petition their
elected representatives to see that former ISI Director General
Ahmad is arrested and brought to the United States for questioning
by an independent investigative body. Clearly the Bush
administration does not want to see this happen, because this, the
most significant lead we have, does not seem to point to bin Laden,
but rather to the Bush administration itself.
IV. FBI INVESTIGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11
WERE DELIBERATELY SABOTAGED BY FBI HEADQUARTERS.
I pointed out earlier that Atta and the other hijackers operated
quite openly in the United States, as if they enjoyed guaranteed
protection. It appears that this was in fact the case. We now
have several detailed reports of crucial investigations of the
September 11 hijackers, both before and after the fact, being
sabotaged by high ranking government officials. Possibly the
most vivid example of this is the way in which the investigation
of the "twentieth hijacker", Zacarias Moussaoui, was sabotaged by
FBI Headquarters.
In August 2001 Moussaoui enrolled in Pan American's International
Flight School in Minneapolis. He aroused suspicions on his very
first day. He paid a deposit for the course in cash in the amount
of $6,800 (the full price of the course is $19,000). He had a heavy
Middle Eastern accent, and waved off concerns about his lack of
preparation for such a course, saying that he was not interested in
professional certification. However, he showed great interest in
learning how to work the airplane's doors and control panel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/08/national/08HIJA.html?pagewanted=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/18/politics/18SUSP.html
It soon became clear the Moussaoui had lied about his personal
background, and that he had no qualifications at all as a pilot.
The potentially frightening implications of training this particular
student were not lost on Pan Am's flying instructors, according to
John Rosengren, director of operations at the school. In a faculty
meeting the next day,
"There was discussion about how much fuel was on board
a 747-400 and how much damage that could cause if it hit
anything,"
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/08/national/08HIJA.html?pagewanted=1
]
Soon one of the flight instructors was on the phone to the FBI:
"Do you realize how serious this is?" the instructor
asked an FBI agent. "This man wants training on a 747.
A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!"
[ http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/913687.html ]
The local FBI agents concurred. They checked out Moussaoui, and
found out that he had overstayed his visa. They persuaded the INS
to take him into custody and keep him there. If not for this good
luck and prompt action Moussaoui would surely have participated
in the attacks of September 11, because from that point on the
investigation met determined opposition from high level FBI
officials who did their best to completely shut it down.
The sickening story is spelled out in a long, agonized letter
written after the events of September 11 by Coleen Rowley, one of
the Field Agents in Minneapolis on the case. The letter was
promptly declared to be classified by the Bureau, but portions
have been leaked to the press:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249997,00.html
Immediately after Moussaoui's arrest, the field agents in
Minneapolis wanted to apply for a warrant to search his apartment
and the hard drive of his computer. FBI headquarters however,
denied that they had probable cause for such a search. Then within
just a few days the field agents received information from the
French Intelligence Service that "confirmed [Moussaoui's]
affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and
activities connected to Osama Bin Laden". At this point the field
agents "became desperate", but incredibly Headquarters continued to
stonewall and deny the existence of probable cause for a search.
Rowley, who has been an FBI division legal advisor for 12 years,
and an FBI agent for 21 years, was at the time and remains today
completely baffled by Headquarters' determination to stop the
investigation. She flatly states that probable cause "was
certainly established".
At that point Rowley tried another route. The FBI can apply for
so called FISA warrants if their aim is to gather intelligence
rather than evidence for a criminal proceeding. The granting of a
FISA warrant is practically guaranteed; the FBI only has to ask for
them. To her amazement, FBI Headquarters "continued to, almost
inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now
desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant."
By this time the field agents were "in a frenzy ... absolutely
convinced [Moussouai] was planning to do something with a plane."
One agent speculated in a memo that that Moussouai had been
planning with unidentified confederates to "fly something into
the World Trade Center."
http://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-16/2-16-readerNEWSWEEK.html
Then came September 11.
Coleen Rowley agonizes in her letter, searching for an explanation
for the betrayal by FBI Headquarters. Were they simply too busy?
Was it normal bureaucratic inertia? Ultimately, she is unable to
accept these convenient but implausible explanations: "The issues
are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY [her emphasis]."
An almost identical story is coming out of the Phoenix FBI office
which was similarly thwarted by FBI Headquarters in their attempt
to investigate Hani Hanjour, who is believed to have crashed an
airliner into the Pentagon on September 11.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238574,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/FBI_informant020523.html
Some of the field agents involved in these and still other similar
cases have applied for whistleblower status, and are taking legal
action to try to force the Bureau to declassify the relevant
documents and come clean about their role in September 11. These
agents are being represented by David Schippers, former Chief
Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and
head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against
former President Bill Clinton.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
(This is a long file. A string search on "Schippers" will get you
to the right paragraph.)
In the meantime Coleen Rowley notes in her letter that in the
aftermath of September 11 the official most responsible for blocking
her investigation of Moussaoui has received a promotion. That's
not all. The FBI Department responsible for repeatedly blocking
Rowley's desperate attempts to obtain authorization to search
Moussouai's apartment and computer is the National Security Law
Unit (NSLU). Just this month (December 2002) the head of the NSLU,
Marion Bowman, received the most prestigious and generous award the
Bureau could confer on him:
At a quiet little ceremony earlier this month, Marion
(Spike) Bowman was one of nine people in the bureau to
receive an award for "exceptional performance." The
reward carries with it a cash bonus of 20 to 35 percent
of the recipient's salary and a framed certificate
signed by the president.
[ http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3547688.html ]
The President of the United States is showering praise and bonuses
and promotions on those responsible for thwarting the investigations
that could have prevented the horrific events of September 11.
And keep in mind Atta's bizarre behaviour when he applied for a
Department of Agriculture loan to purchase crop-dusting equipment
in May of 2000. Atta used his real name, and he made sure the
interviewer (Johnelle Bryant) spelled it correctly. He told her
that he wanted to buy a crop-duster and to "build a chemical tank
that would fit inside the aircraft and take up every available
square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be
sitting." Atta then fixated on an aerial photo of Washington DC
hanging on the office wall, and wanted to purchase it:
"He pulled out a wad of cash," she said, "and started
throwing money on my desk. He wanted that picture really
bad." Bryant indicated that the picture was not for sale,
and he threw more money down.
"His look on his face became very bitter at that point,"
Bryant remembers. "I believe he said, 'How would America
like it if another country destroyed that city and some
of the monuments in it,' like the cities in his country
had been destroyed?" ...
Atta also talked about life in his country. "He
mentioned al Qaeda, he mentioned Osama bin Laden," ...
He boasted about the role that they would one day play.
"He said this man would someday be known as the world's
greatest leader," she said.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ross_bryant020606.html
Bryant, perhaps to provide us with some much needed comic relief,
finishes her story by asking, "How could I have known [that this
man was a terrorist]?"
The point is that Atta was operating completely openly, and even
seems to be DELIBERATELY drawing attention to himself as a terrorist
suspect. This makes sense if, as I believe, Atta was laying a false
trail of evidence which he WANTED to be discovered after the attacks
(more on this later). The attacks of September 11 were planned and
carried out with impressive military discipline and efficiency.
Atta is not exposing himself out of stupidity or carelessness. He
must have expected that Bryant would immediately notify the FBI
(although she did not). We now know that this would not have
mattered - that any attempt to investigate would have been killed by
FBI Headquarters. Clearly, at the time, Atta must have known this
as well. The question of exactly why Atta would have wanted to
incriminate himself in this way will be addressed in section VIII.
V. THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS.
So ... whoever perpetrated September 11 obviously has tons of
money and a tight military organization. You would expect that
this would not be an isolated event, but the start of a coordinated
campaign. If this was the work of Islamic fundamentalists, then
where is the Jihad? Where are the Holy Warriors who should have
been positioned and ready to follow up on the opening shot of the
war?
There was a second wave of attacks - the dissemination of anthrax
letters to both random and carefully selected targets. However,
everyone now acknowledges that this was an inside job - that the
weapons grade anthrax used would only be available to a very
limited number of scientists and military/intelligence officers
working in the United States on highly classified projects.
In fact according to the leading expert on the anthrax attacks,
professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, the FBI has long known exactly
who was behind these attacks - attacks that have so far have killed
at least five american citizens - but the Bureau has decided to let
the perpetrator off the hook, just as the sponsor of the September
11 hijackings has been let off the hook. Professor Rosenberg is a
microbiologist and an expert on biological warfare who has served
as a presidential advisor and testified before congress on this
subject. She was selected by the Federation of American Scientists
to investigate the anthrax attacks. Over one year ago, in January
2002, professor Rosenberg stated:
The FBI has surely known for several months that the
anthrax attack was an inside job. A government estimate
for the number of scientists involved in the US anthrax
program over the last five years is 200 people. According
to a former defense scientist the number of defense
scientists with hands-on anthrax experience and the
necessary access is smaller, under 50. The FBI has
received short lists of specific suspects with credible
motives from a number of knowledgeable inside sources,
and has found or been given clues ... that could lead to
incriminating evidence. By now the FBI must have a good
idea of who the perpetrator is.
http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm
Another leading expert on biological warfare, professor Francis
Boyle of Indiana University, concurs with Rosenberg's opinion.
Professor Boyle is a renowned expert on international law who
has testified before congress on legal issues concerning biological
warfare. He was instrumental in drafting the Biological Weapons
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. His analysis of the anthrax attacks
has led him to the same conclusion reached by professor Rosenberg,
which he states even more bluntly:
I believe that the FBI knows exactly who was behind these
attacks and that they have concluded that the perpetrator
was someone who was or is involved in illegal and criminal
biological warfare research conducted by the US government
(the Pentagon or the CIA) or by one of the government's
civilian contractors. For that reason, the FBI is not
going to apprehend and indict the perpetrator.
http://web.greens.org/s-r/30/30-12.html
As with the investigation of the funding channel for the September
11 hijackers, the anthrax investigation started off fast and made
great progress only to come to a screeching halt with the
perpetrator within easy reach.
The most obvious pieces of evidence were the notes that accompanied
the anthrax mailings. These contained crude misspellings and
praised Allah while calling for the downfall of the United States.
These notes were quickly recognized as a transparent hoax. As
professor Rosenberg has stated:
Expert analysts for the FBI believe that the letters were
written by a Westerner, not a Middle Easterner or Muslim,
although the text was clearly intended to imply the latter.
http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport
The anthrax strain used was consistent in all letters. A detailed
genetic analysis narrowed the search to a single laboratory: the US
Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/anthrax/story/0,1520,719367,00.html
Further, the sophisticated weaponization process used to treat the
spores, and the highly specialized expertise needed to store and
handle the spores narrows the search even much further. This
leaves us with just a handful of suspects involved in the Fort
Detrick program:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport
With the field narrowed down so drastically, professor Rosenberg
points us to what I believe is the key piece of evidence in
identifying the perpetrator:
On Sept. 21, three days after the first anthrax mailing
and before any letters or anthrax cases were in the news,
an anonymous typed letter was mailed to Quantico accusing
an Egyptian-American scientist, formerly of USAMRIID, of
plotting biological terrorism. The accused scientist was
quickly exonerated by the FBI. The letter's writer
displayed familiarity with work at USAMRIID and claimed
to have formerly worked with the accused scientist.
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/fas-01.html
Obviously the anonymous accuser himself fits the profile of the
actual perpetrator. Furthermore he was able to correctly
anticipate that there would be an anthrax attack and that the
strain of anthrax used would lead to Fort Detrick. The conclusion
seems inescapable that the anonymous author of this false
accusation was the author of the attack itself.
The falsely accused was an Egyptian born scientist, Dr. Ayaad
Assaad who worked at USAMRIID during the 1990's. During his
employment there he was the target of racist attacks from a Jewish
coworker, Lt. Col. Philip Zack. In one incident Zack mailed
Assaad a rubber camel with a huge model sexual appendage attached,
together with an eight page poem that described Dr. Assaad among
many other things as a "life form lower than yeast".
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134380111_detrick19.html
As a result of this and a string of similar racist attacks by
Lt. Col. Zack, Assaad filed a harrassment suit and Zack was forced
to resign his position at USAMRIID. However, Zack continued to
have access to the lab illegally with the help of a personal friend
there.
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hcourant.html
Certainly Lt. Col. Zack must be considered to be the prime
candidate as the author of the letter falsely accusing Dr. Assad.
In my view this also makes him the prime suspect in the attacks
themselves - Especially when you take into account the fact
that his illegal comings and goings at Fort Detrick occurred
at the time when anthrax spores matching the genetic profile
of those used in the attacks went missing there.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134393798_anthrax21.html
In any event, the suspects in this crucial investigation are
certainly NOT fanatical Islamic fundamentalists. Everyone close to
the investigation agrees that the perpetrator is a highly qualified
bio-warfare expert who has worked on highly classified projects for
the United States government. He has very specific and rare
skills that in themselves narrow the field to a mere handful people,
without even taking into account the evidence surrounding the
mailings themselves. The postmarks provide a series of time stamps
associated with specific locations. An investigation like this can
stall when there are thousands of possible suspects; it cannot
stall when there are a handful of suspects and abundant clues to
resolve the perpetrator's identity. Professors Rosenberg and Boyle
are quite correct; the FBI is deliberately shielding the
perpetrator of these terrible crimes, which have taken the lives of
five innocent american citizens and which attack the foundations of
our free and open society.
But not everyone is going unprotected. With exceptional foresight
so notably absent elsewhere in this case, Vice President Dick Cheney
was able to anticipate that anthrax would become a problem in the
Capitol. He and his staff started taking an anti-anthrax medication
(Cipro) on the night of September 11, before the letters containing
anthrax started to arrive.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/terror/news/1024beth.htm
http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2002/ap060902.html
Obtaining and preparing the anthrax will have been a difficult and
lengthy process. The attacks, beginning just seven days after
September 11, must have been prepared well in advance by a highly
sophisticated government insider. Like the hijackers themselves
and their sponsors in the ISI, the perpetrator clearly has powerful
protectors high inside the U.S. government. The two attacks seem
to have been perfectly coordinated to work towards the same
objective. The ever incisive professor Rosenberg observes:
The perpetrator was probably ready before Sept. 11 and
simply took advantage of the likelihood that Sept. 11
would throw suspicion on Muslim terrorists. Was the
perpetrator trying to push the US toward some retaliatory
military action?
http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm
VI. THE ULTRA-RIGHTWING AGENDA ALREADY IN PLACE FOR A WAR AGAINST
THE ARAB STATES.
But why would our government WANT to whip up public support for an
all out war against the Arab states? The answer is readily found
in a series of position papers from the "Project for a New American
Century" (PNAC) that are available on the web. PNAC is an ultra-
righwing and militaristic think tank that developed around the
most extreme hawks in Dick Cheney's Defense Department at the
end of George Bush Sr's administration. To understand why an inner
circle of presidential advisors including Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Wolfowitz and Perle, are pushing for a comprehensive attack on the
Arab States, you should check out their website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
In particular, click on the link for "Defense and National
Security", and then download "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
(This is the first item listed. You'll need Acrobat Reader).
This paper lays out the plan to dominate the entire globe, starting
with the Middle East and Central Asia. The authors figure that to
support this we will need to beef up the military to the point
where we will be able to support multiple simultaneous major wars
together with occupations and police actions. All of this was in
place years before September 11. This paper was published in
September 2000. It's perfectly clear then that September 11 is
simply being used as a pretext to implement an ultra-rightwing
agenda that was put in place years before.
I want to emphasize that this has absolutely nothing to do with
suppressing terrorism. In fact, this agenda will surely have
exactly the opposite effect. In the lengthy and detailed document
I have referenced you can search for the word "terrorism" and you
will not find it at all. However if you search for the word
"preeminence", as in "american preeminence", "geopolitical
preeminence", "military preeminence" etc., you will find that word
many times.
The plan to use our differences with Saddam Hussein as a pretext
for initiating the campaign for an american global empire is
explicitly stated:
"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the
issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein ... Iran may
well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the
Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian
relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in
the region would still be an essential element in U.S.
security strategy given the longstanding American
interests in the region."
The fanatical Zionism of some advisors, eg Paul Wolfowitz and
Richard Perle, is clearly a factor driving this policy. Israel's
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has echoed elements of this planning
paper, for example calling for an invasion of Iran "one day after"
we subjugate Iraq [interview with the Times/UK, 5 Nov. 2002].
Other important players pushing this agenda, such as Rumsfeld and
Cheney, appear to be motivated by a dangerously radical view
towards the uses of US military power now that the US is the single,
unchallenged superpower. In any case, it is safe to say that
September 11 is simply being used as a pretext for an agenda that
has been in place for years now.
The proposed military moves in the Middle East will not suppress
terrorism. On the contrary, many thousands will flock to the cause
of Islamic Jihad if we continue this way. And in the meantime,
outrageously, the real leads we have on the perpetrators of
September 11 are being allowed to dangle uninvestigated. I'm
referring again to former ISI Director General Ahmad, the paymaster
of the hijackers, who has been allowed to slip off into retirement,
and the unpursued anthrax leads which can only point to a single
cutting edge bio-warfare laboratory right here in the USA.
Why, Why, WHY???
VII. CONCLUSION
The horrific events of September 11 bear all the earmarks of a
covert "pretext" operation designed to support a military agenda
that could never have otherwise been set in motion. Investigations
of both the hijackings and the subsequent anthrax attacks lead not
to Islamic fundamentalists, but point to our own military and
intelligence organizations, and, in the case of the hijackings, to
their client and close ally, the ISI. Consequently our government
has simply terminated these investigations. Similarly, crucial
FBI investigations that could have prevented the attacks were
"inexplicably" sabotaged by FBI Headquarters over the desperate
objections of Field Agents who were fully aware of the terrifying
implications of what they had uncovered. These Field Agents have
now been forced to apply for "whistleblower" status for their own
protection, while the officials who sabotaged the investigations
are being richly rewarded with promotions, bonuses and presidential
awards.
It appears that the purpose of this deliberate mass murder of
thousands of innocent American citizens was to whip up public
support for a comprehensive attack on the Arab states in the
Middle East. The plans for these military moves have been in
place for several years, but they could never have won public
approval without this boost.
VIII. EPILOG - HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
In the introduction I discussed the Gladio operations carried
out in Europe in the 1970's and 1980's. Among other things this
involved a series of bombings in Italy in which hundreds of
innocent civilians were killed. The bombings were designed to
appear to be the work of communist subversives, but in fact were
carried out by extreme right wing groups under the direction of
the CIA.
[ Arthur E. Rowse: Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert
Italian Democracy. Covert Action Quarterly No. 49, Summer 1994.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html ]
The philosophy behind this kind of operation is spelled out in
the top secret Supplement B to U.S. Army Field Manual FM 30-31,
signed by General William Westmoreland in March 1970:
There may be times when HC [Host Country] governments
show passivity or indecision in face of Communist or
Communist-inspired subversion, and react with inadequate
vigor to intelligence estimates transmitted by U.S.
agencies ... In such cases, U.S. Army intelligence must
have the means of launching special operations which will
convince HC governments and public opinion of the reality
of the insurgent danger and of the necessity of
counteraction.
To this end, U.S. Army intelligence should seek to
penetrate the insurgency by means of agents on special
assignment, with the task of forming special action groups
among the more radical elements of the insurgency. When the
kind of situation envisaged above arises, these groups,
acting under U.S. Army intelligence control, should be used
to launch violent or non-violent actions according to the
nature of the case.
http://cryptome.org/inscom-foia02.htm
The aim of these operations then was to polarize the public and
convince them that they were faced with violence and death from
political extremists, WHEN NECESSARY MANUFACTURING THE VIOLENCE
AND DEATH THAT WAS NEEDED TO PUSH PUBLIC OPINION IN THE DESIRED
DIRECTION.
Now I agree that it's a step up from killing hundreds of innocent
civilians in order to further your political agenda to, in the
case of the attacks on September 11, killing thousands of innocents.
But how big a step is this really? ... Especially when you consider
how much greater the stakes are now (from the warped perspective of
the extreme militarists). During the Cold War we were constantly
fighting on the edges - trying to force geopolitical boundaries a
little bit one way or the other. Now as the world's single great
superpower we have a unique "opportunity" to dominate the entire
globe and gain control of key resources - especially oil of course.
The evidence presented here (and much more that has been omitted
in the interest of keeping this short) strongly suggests that
September 11 was just such an operation, mounted by a radical group
within the Bush administration - an alliance of extreme militarists
and fanatical Zionists who are gaining increasing influence in our
military and intelligence command structures.
The scenario prescribed by Westmoreland is a perfect fit for what
we have observed. It would be very easy for the CIA to infiltrate
"agents provocateur" among genuine Islamic fundamentalists using
their loyal client, Pakistan's ISI, as the intermediary. With ISI
support the provocateurs could quickly gain leadership status.
Then all you need is the political clout to shut down any
investigation by the CIA or FBI that might threaten the operation.
Mohammed Atta is an obvious provocateur, operating very openly and
deliberately leaving a trail of damning evidence. His strange
double life as a zealous Islamic fundamentalist on the one hand
and wild, fully westernized party animal on the other becomes
completely coherent in this context.
Not only are there precedents for this general kind of "false
flag" provocation - there are even precedents specifically for the
framing of Arabs for terrorist attacks against the United States
that in fact were perpetrated by Zionist extremists with the aim
of poisoning US relations with the Arab states. The Lavon Affair
involved a series of bombings of American and British institutions
in Egypt in 1954. These terrorist attacks were ordered by the head
of Israeli intelligence with the aim of making it appear that they
were perpetrated by Egyptian nationalists. The idea was to damage
relations between Egypt and the US and Britain. [See for example,
"Israel's Sacred Terrorism", Livia Rokach, Chapter 7:
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html].
Of course, in the case of September 11, the Zionists could only
have hoped to pull this off with very highly placed and determined
assistance from within our own military and intelligence
organizations. I believe that this was provided by the alliance
of extreme militarists and fanatical Zionists surrounding Vice
President Dick Cheney, as discussed above.
In considering this evidence it's important to recognize just how
corrupt our intelligence establishment has become. One huge scandal
that has never been addressed is narcotics trafficking and money
laundering by the CIA. Agency involvement in large scale heroin
trafficking started in Laos during the Vietnam war. This has been
known for decades; a good reference is Professor William Chambliss'
presidential address to the American Society of Criminology in 1988:
http://www.memresearch.org/econ/state-organized_crime.htm
During the campaign in Afghanistan CIA heroin trafficking
accelerated, and the United States was flooded with Afghan heroin.
Alfred McCoy, Professor of Southeast Asian History at the University
of Wisconsin, Madison, has discussed this problem, and the central
role this played in the administration of George Bush Sr:
First of all, I think the Laos parallel is very strong in
the Iran-Contra operation ... All the personnel that are
involved in that operation are Laos veterans. Ted Shackley,
Thomas Clines, Oliver North, Richard Secord - they all
served in Laos during thirteen-year war. They are all part
of that policy of integrating narcotics and being
complicitous in the narcotics trade in the furtherance of
covert action.
http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/ciah3.html
[ See Also, "The Politics of Heroin, CIA Complicity in the
Global Drug Trade", Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books,
NY 1991 ]
The CIA also became very active in smuggling cocaine from Latin
America during this period, and the proceeds were used among other
things to fund the Contra guerillas in Nicauragua.
["Whiteout, The CIA Drugs and the Press", Cockburn & St. Clair,
Verson, London 1998]
Notoriously, George Bush Jr. has surrounded himself with officials
associated with the worst scandals involving covert operations of
his father's administration, including the Iran-Contra scandal.
These officials include men like Richard Armitage, Elliott Abrams
(convicted of two misdemeanors), John Poindexter (convicted on five
felony charges), and Richard Secord (convicted on six felony
charges). (Unfortunately most of these convictions were later
overturned on the technicality that they were contaminated by
immunized testimony before congressional committees.) These men
were active in formulating policy at the very time our government
started to pump money into the ISI and to cultivate this agency as
a client. Now they are choosing to simply ignore the fact that it
is their own client and ally who funded the September 11 attacks.
Noted historian Theodore Draper has written of Iran-Contra and the
related pattern of criminal activity in the White House:
If ever the constitutional democracy of the United States
States is overthrown, we now have a better idea of how
this is likely to be done. During the course of the Iran-
Contra affairs, from 1984 to 1986, something in the nature
of a junta was at work inside the U.S. government. We
usually think of a junta as plotting to overthrow a
president; this junta came into being to overthrow an
established constitutional rule of law with the help of a
president. The main lesson from this experience is that
the chief danger to our political system is from within,
not from without.
[Theodore Draper, Foreword to "The Iran-Contra Scandal,
The Declassified History", Kornbluh and Byrne eds.,
The New Press, 1993, NY, pg. xiii]
George Bush Sr. himself, a few months before he granted presidential
pardons to his friends, put it even more graphically:
"If the people were to ever find out what we have done,
we would be chased down the streets and lynched."
[George H.W. Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah
McClendon Newsletter]
The former President and father of the current President has
put his finger on their own worst nightmare: the time tested
ability of the american people to raise holy hell when their
government abuses their trust.
Tim Howells
[ Note: Throughout this post is deeply indebted to the timeline
compiled by the Cooperative Research Group (CGI). See:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/ ]
Bud
"Green Eggs and Ham" by Dr Suess
> I'll append a collection of reviews. If you can point me
> to a book that comes more highly recommended by knowledgable people
> in this field, I will immediately purchase and read it. It is
> obvious that you feel compelled to trash this work sight unseen
> simply because you do not want to hear what Kepel is saying.
Fair enough. Your bias was so intwined with the review of Kepel`s
book that it was hard for me to differentiate were his ideas stopped,
and you extended his thinking. I`ll go back and try to point out in
your original posts were that bias shows itself.
-Bud
Bud
> University Press, Cambridge, 2002, trans. Anthony F. Roberts.
>
> Trying to play catch-up on the history of the Middle East, I
> sought out the most authoritative book on Islamic
> fundamentalism that I could find. I settled on this one.
> The back cover features rave reviews from The Economist, the
> New York Times Book Review, and Walter Laqueur writing in the
> Atlantic Monthly. According to Laqueur, "'Jihad' is probably
> the best introduction to Islamism currently available." My
> interest was spurred by September 11. I am firmly convinced
> that September 11 was a provocation engineered by elements in
> the US and Israeli governments.
You admit to firmly believing this before you read the book. Very
open- minded approach.
I was interested to see how
> this theory would hold up in the light of the best available
> establishment thinking on Islamic fundamentalism. The bottom
> line is that while Kepel is quite cautious about connecting
> the dots, he views September 11 as a complete anomaly in the
> context of Islamic terrorism, and he cautiously suggests that
> bin Laden, if indeed the author of the attacks at all, may
> have been acting on behalf of "wider groups" interested in
> altering US foreign policy.
What does he use in leu of evidence? Innuendo? And I can`t see by
what means he dismisses Bin Laden and Al-Qeada... they aren`t
motivated enough, they don`t have money, they can`t operate box
cutters, what? Didn`t I see film of Bin Laden and his cronies
discussing theses attacks? Didn`t they release communications before
and after 9-11 ominously warning of attacks?
The first thing conspiracy theorists try to do is show that the
"fall guys" where not smart enough, sophisticated enough, ect, to pull
off such an operation. You see the same pattern with Oswald and the
JFK asassination.
He is saying that because of a "general distaste" amongst wealthy
Arabs, they would support Al-Qaeda? In all cases? No wealthy Arab
support from any country? Did you see all that American cash they
found in Iraq? Saddam couldn`t get a bag of that to Al-Qaeda without
anyone knowing? Bin Laden is/was rich, he couldn`t pass a hat among
the Saudi elite? How much money does an all volunteer group need?
Asserting that because a "general distaste", Al-Qaeda couldn`t raise
money needs a little more support for that assertion, than just saying
it.
>
> Kepel allows himself to speculate briefly on the real powers
> behind September 11 and other related atrocities:
>
> "Was it thinkable that, whatever bin Laden's
> extremism, some wider groups willing to reshuffle
> the U.S.-Saudi relationship would discreetly push
> him forward, so as to send well-calculated advance
> warnings - warnings, perhaps, that oil money should
> go through different channels, that the great deal
> that had been brokered on board the U.S.S. Quincy
> in the aftermath of Yalta between Frankln D.
> Roosevelt and King Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud should be
> revised? And what had all this to do with the still
> largely mysterious bombing of the World Trade
> Center on February 26 1993?" [page 321]
Anybody can raise questions. Can he provide answers?
This is funny... these Muslim extremists were meeting together,
trading recipes, when the FBI plant chirps up, "hey, I got an idea,
lets go bomb the World Trade Center. Naturally, what else could they
do but go along?
>
> So Kepel strongly suggests that not only September 11 but also
> the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were carefully
> planned provocations engineered by powerful forces - forces
> capable, for example, of utilizing the FBI in the tradition of
> COINTELPRO - i.e. forces within our own government. The Islamic
> terrorists themselves were just fall guys.
Is this your point, Tim, or Kepel`s? Do you think he proves this
point?
Bud
of fantasy, never carried out. It only goes to show that the
government can`t even keep speculation about these things secret, let
alone actually trying to carry them out. Can you imagine the fiasco if
they would have tried such nonsense? It would be like the French, when
they sank that Greenpeace ship.
This is very typical of leftist thinking, though. If a cop commits
an infringment of rights in one case, they think it proves misconduct
in all cases.
> [ http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf ]
>
> Although these plans were never carried out (they were rejected
> by President Kennedy), similar proposals WERE actually implemented a
> 1970's and 1980's in Europe by the CIA, resulting in the deaths of
> hundreds of innocent civilians. In one bombing of a busy train
> station in Bologna Italy in 1980, 86 people were killed and over
> 200 wounded. The bombings were designed to look like the work of
> communist extremists although they were in fact committed by right
> wing extremists working under the direction of the CIA. The aim
> of these operations was to whip up anticommunist sentiment among
> our european allies.
>
> [Arthur E. Rowse: Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian
> Democracy. Covert Action Quarterly No. 49, Summer 1994.
> http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html ]
>
This Rouse guy shows a smoking-gun, clear, indisputable link between
the CIA, and these attacks? Or, enough to convince you?
> Was September 11 a similar operation, mounted by elements of our own
> government in order to whip up public support for an all out war
> against the Arab states in the Middle East? The evidence strongly
> suggests that this is the case.
>
> My aim here is to provide a brief introduction to some of this
> evidence with pointers for further reading.
>
> [ Note: Throughout this post is deeply indebted to the timeline
> compiled by the Cooperative Research Group (CGI). See:
> http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/ ]
>
> *******************************************************
>
>
> OUTLINE:
>
> I. The hijackers were not fanatical Islamic fundamentalists
> (far from it).
> A) They smoked and drank and partied hard.
Wow, I guess that proves they didn`t hijack those planes, they was
pretend-fundamentalists. They were minding thier own business, when
the other passengers commandeered the plane and drove it into the
World Trade Center.
> B) Several of the hijackers had training at secure
> military facilities in the United States
Now, all you need to do is prove a connection between military or
political individuals, and these attacks, and you will have something.
I will commence holding my breath...
> C) The hijackers operated quite openly, as if they
> had powerful protectors in the U.S.
>
That they weren`t stopped is offered as evidence that they had
powerful protectors. Typical crackpot conspiracy thinking.
> II. The hijackers were not capable of the feats of piloting
> that are attributed to them.
And Oswald couldn`t shoot. Yet, he did.
>
> III. The hijackers lead back to Pakistan's ISI, and through
> the ISI, back to the CIA and the Bush administration.
> A) Funding for the hijackers came from ISI Director
> General Ahmad
> B) On September 11 Ahmad was in Washington meeting
> with key administration officials.
> C) On September 12 the administration announced
> Ahmad's agreement to collaborate in their
> "War on Terrorism".
> D) The ISI is not a tool of bin Laden - it's the
> very much the other way around.
>
> IV. FBI investigations that could have prevented September 11
> were deliberately sabotaged by FBI Headquarters.
> A) At least two FBI investigations were deliberately
> stopped that could have prevented September 11.
Like in the JFK assassination, mistakes do not prove conspiracy,
unless you can prove intent.
> B) The hijackers must have KNOWN that the FBI would
> not investigate - they operated quite openly,
> and even seemed to deliberately draw attention
> to themselves as potential terrorists.
What did they do to draw attention to themselves? Go on talkshows?
>
> V. The anthrax attacks
> A) No potential terrorists had access to the advanced,
> "weaponized" form of anthrax used.
> B) All suspects lead back to US or Israeli intelligence.
What is the proof linking the "suspects" to the anthrax attacks?
> C) The crude misspellings and appeals to Allah and Islam
> in the letters appear to be a hoax to blame this on
> Arab terrorists.
Because terrorists never appeal to Allah, or misspell words.
>
> VI. The ultra-rightwing agenda already in place for a war against
> the Arab states.
Of course it is.
>
> VII. Conclusion - It appears that the September 11 attacks were
> covertly instigated and supported by elements of our own
> government to support an ultra-rightwing political and
> military agenda.
What other conclusion could be drawn?
Such compelling evidence. When someone wants to be convinced of
something, it doesn`t take much. When was the will written? Possibly
long before he contemplated driving a liner into a building.
>
> It was soon discovered that this image was completely false.
> In fact, most of the hijackers were thoroughly americanized and
> enjoyed quite wild, hedonistic lifestyles. Several of the them,
> including the leader and "suicide pilot" Mohammed Atta, were
> frequently seen out bar hopping, smoking and getting drunk.
> They sometimes engaged lap-dancers and prostitutes:
Just like our homegrown religious leaders.
>
> http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010912/10103.html
> http://www2.bostonherald.com/attack/investigation/ausprob10102001.htm
>
> In Boston the night before the hijackings the WTC hijackers
> tried to engage some prostitutes, but then backed out because
> they decided it was too expensive:
Horny, yet frugal. A bad combination. I guess they never heard the
saying "you can`t take it with you".
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20011011012426/http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/283/metro/Hijackers_said_to_seek_prostitutes-.shtml
>
> These are not the actions of Islamic fanatics on their way to
> die for Allah! It certainly appears that the hijackers did not
> know that this was a suicide mission, and were not genuine
> Islamic fundamentalists.
In that one tape, Bin Laden mentions that not all the highjackers
were informed that it was a suicide mission until the planes were
taken.
>
> 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, mostly from wealthy families.
> In fact, most of the hijackers are typical of the wealthy, high-
> rolling, hedonistic Saudis who turn up over and over again in covert
> operations sponsored by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and
> George Bush Sr. and Jr. These scandals include Iran-Contra, the
> Savings and Loan Scandal (by far the most massive financial rip-off
> in history), the massive money-laundering that led to the collapse
> of BCCI, a Pakistani bank with strong ties to the CIA, and, more
> recently, the Enron scandal. The connection to U.S. intelligence
> is more than speculative; several of the hijackers had training at
> secure military installations in the U.S. The locations where the
> hijackers received training include:
>
> * The Pensacola Naval Station
> * Lackland Air Force Base
> * Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama
> * Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama
> * The Defense Language Institute in Monterey
>
Do civilians often use these bases for flight training? Typical
sinister sounding stuff scotch taped together to form a conspiracy
collage.
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
> [ This is a long file. A string search on "military sources" will
> take you to the right paragraph ]
>
> There is further compelling evidence that the hijackers were in
> fact recruits of the CIA based on the manner in which they obtained
> their visas to live in the United States. The National Review has
> published a careful study of this question that concludes that the
> awarding of visas to these applicants is "inexplicable". This is
> the strong consensus opinion of several government officials with
> extensive hands-on experience with the process of issuing visas in
> this part of the world:
>
> All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for
> human error, no more than a handful of the visa
> applications should have managed to slip through the
> cracks. Making the visa lapses even more inexplicable,
> the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15
> were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel,
> one of the former consular officers who analyzed the
> forms, declares that State's issuance of the visas
> "amounts to criminal negligence."
They found that bureaucrats are incompetent? Hold the presses.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp
>
> The great majority of the hijackers' visas, 15 of them, were
> issued at the US consular office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Michael
> Springman, formerly the head US consular officer in Jeddah has shed
> light on how and why these visas were issued. According to
> Springman:
>
> "In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level
> State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified
> applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no
> ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I
> complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the
> US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General
> Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
> and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with
> silence ...
So, obviously that means the government was purposely allowing this
condition to exist. Again, you show no intent. Our Mexican border
leaks like a sieve, despite decades of complaints.
>
> "What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring
> recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for
> terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned
> to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
>
> So it certainly appears that at least 15 of the 19 hijackers were
> CIA recruits, trained at secure military facilities in the United
> States, and operating here under the protection and sponsorship
> of the US government.
Yes, if they were Saudis, they must be CIA, well done proving that.
>
> The hijackers' drinking and partying is certainly more typical of
> youthful westernized military recruits than devout fundamentalist
> Moslems. It is sometimes claimed that they were just pretending to
> be westernized in order to "blend in" and escape detection. This
> makes no sense at all. Even if they had been seen to be devout
> Muslims, that would hardly make them terrorists. And they made
> no attempt at all to hide their really suspicious activities, for
> example shopping around for crop dusting equipment!
How did the FBI miss that? They went shopping for crop dusting
equiptment, all hung over from thier incessant partying, and they FBI
didn`t pick up on these tell tale signs?
>
> In one incident Mohammed Atta applied for a loan from the Department
> of Agriculture to purchase a crop duster.
And not a red flag raised? Amazing!
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ross_bryant020606.html
>
> In the first place, it's odd that Atta bothered with a loan at all,
> since it's clear that the amount of the loan was pocket change to
> the people funding him. Atta used his real name, and made sure the
> interviewer spelled it correctly. During the interview, Atta praised
> bin Laden as "the world's greatest leader", discussed the possibility
> of blowing up U.S. landmarks, including the World Trade Center, and
> generally behaved like a raving lunatic. Nice blending in!
And, this of course goes a long way to proving your contention that
he wasn`t a foaming at the mouth Islamic extremist.
But, the good people at the Departmnt of Agriculture, being a
government agency, and thus, part of the conspiracy, just doubled his
loan.
Are these those same kooks I always see them interviewing on those
alien visitation shows? The US has the highest per-capita of morons in
the world.
If some nut can imagine it, it must be how it was done. Who needs
evidence when we have such active imaginations?
But, since you are trailing off into the twilight zone of remote
controlled planes flown into buildings (yeah, first they gas all the
passegengers to put them asleep, then they install the remote control
device, at different airports, under the noses of the people at those
airports, like baggage handlers, and refuelers, I know they did, I saw
it on Mission Impossible...), it`s time I bailed on this response. It
will be hard to come up with ridicule for these ideas, as they are
more ridiculous than what I can come up with.
Charles Farley
>
> Charles Farley wrote:
> >
> > Tim Howells wrote:
> >
> >> I am firmly convinced that September 11 was a provocation
> >> engineered by elements in the US and Israeli governments.
> >>
> >> the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were carefully
> >> planned provocations engineered by powerful forces - forces
> >> capable, for example, of utilizing the FBI in the tradition of
> >> COINTELPRO - i.e. forces within our own government. The Islamic
> >> terrorists themselves were just fall guys.
> >
> >
> > Call the local mental hospital, tell them you have escaped.
>
>
> Well, in fact those are my own opinions, but in this case I was
> reporting the opinions of Professor Gilles Kepel,
Why? Obviously, Kepel is a lunatic. And if you believe him...
> whose book "Jihad, the Trail of Political Islam" is widely
> considered to be the most authoritative source on Islamic
> fundamentalism and terrorism.
From Kepel's assertions you have shared, he would be "widely
considered" a lunatic.
> Really you should address your objections to these ideas to
> prof Kepel - I'm just the messenger here.
Right, I'll get right on his "ideas" that "September 11 was a
provocation engineered by elements in the US and Israeli governments."
Here, try reading about Islamic fundamentalism from some non-idiots:
Militant Islam Reaches America
by Daniel Pipes
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393052044/
Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide
by Bat Ye'or
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0838639437/
What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity
by Bernard Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060516054/
The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs
by David Pryce-Jones
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060981032/
Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went
Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in
America
by Anonymous
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060528192/
Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics
by Ann Elizabeth Mayer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813335043/
Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing
Faith
by Robert Spencer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554589/
American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us
by Steven Emerson
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743234359/
From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over
Palestine
by Joan Peters
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963624202/
Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East
by Michael B. Oren
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195151747/
Scotius
foreign policy, or at least diminishing its' power, are France and
Germany, the principal apologists for bin Laden and his crew, and the
two biggest voices trying to prevent America from doing anything
EFFECTIVE to keep its' position.
On 27 Jul 2003 03:21:42 -0700, tim.h...@nc.uas.lul.se (Tim Howells)
wrote: