September 11 - Jihad, or Another Northwoods?
Tim Howells
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.
["Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, March 13, 1962
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 during
the 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 anti-communist sentiment among our european
allies. ["Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian Democracy,"
Arthur E. Rowse, Covert Action Quarterly, No. 49, Summer 1994
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html ][1]
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.
OUTLINE:
1. 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.
2. The hijackers were not capable of the feats of piloting that are
attributed to them.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The anthrax attacks:
A) No potential terrorists had access to the advanced, "weaponized"
form of anthrax used.
B) All suspects lead back to U.S. 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.
6. The ultra-rightwing agenda already in place for a war against the
Arab states.
7. 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.
8. Epilog--How could this happen? Some historical context.
1. 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 to 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.]
["Atta's Will Found--Suspected Hijacker Left Strict Instructions,"
ABCNEWS, October 4, 2001
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:
"Feds investigating possible terrorist-attack links in Florida," Ken
Thomas, Associated Press, September 12, 2001
http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010912/10103.html
"Terrorists partied with hooker at Hub-area hotel," Dave Wedge, Boston
Herald, October 10, 2001
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:
"Sept. 10--Hijackers said to seek prostitutes," Shelley Murphy and
Douglas Belkin, Boston Globe Online, October 10, 2001
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.
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.[2] The locations where the hijackers received training
include:
- The Pensacola Naval Air Station
- Lackland Air Force Base
- Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama
- Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama
- The Defense Language Institute in Monterey
"Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases--The Pentagon has
turned over military records on five men to the FBI," George
Wehrfritz, Catharine Skipp and John Barry, NEWSWEEK, September 15,
2001
http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp
"Did Bush Know?--Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures,"
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, May 18, 2002
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."
["Visas that Should Have Been Denied--A look at 9/11 terrorists' visa
applications," Joel Mowbray, National Review Online, October 9, 2002
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp ]
*
The great majority of the hijackers' visas, 15 of them, were issued at
the U.S. consular office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman,
formerly the head U.S. 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."
["Has someone been sitting on the FBI?," Greg Palast, BBC Newsnight,
November 6, 2001
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 U.S.
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:
"Face to Face With a Terrorist--Government Worker Recalls Mohamed Atta
Seeking Funds Before Sept. 11," Brian Ross, ABCNEWS, June 6, 2002
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." ["Virginia man
charged with helping hijackers get IDs," Associated Press, September
25, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0925_hijackers_fakeids_ap.html
]
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.
2. 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."
"September 11 - US Government accused," The News, August 3, 2002
http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September%2011%20-%20US%20Government%20accused&edition=all
http://web.archive.org/web/20020822131511/http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September+11+-+US+Government+accused&edition=all
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:
"How 'shy foreigners' learned to pilot flying-bomb Boeings--All it
took was a $4,000 flying course in Florida course in Florida flying
school," Julian Borger and Stuart Millar, The Guardian, September 14,
2001
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 U.S.
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.
3. THE HIJACKERS LEAD BACK TO PAKISTAN'S ISI, AND THROUGH THE ISI,
BACK TO THE CIA AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
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.
"India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links," Manoj Joshi, Times News
Network, October 9, 2001
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
"Gen Mahmud's exit due to links with Umar Sheikh," DAWN, October 9,
2001
http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/09/top13.htm
"Our Friends the Pakistanis," James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal
Editorial Page, October 10, 2001
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:
"Rifts Plentiful as 9/11 Inquiry Begins," James Risen, The New York
Times, June 4, 2002
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:
"Powell Says It Clearly: No Middle Ground On Terrorism," Jane Perlez,
The New York Times, September 13, 2001
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:
"India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links," Manoj Joshi, Times News
Network, October 9, 2001
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/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:
"A man of wealth transformed into warrior," John Dorschner, Miami
Herald, September 24, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011109163238/www.miami.com/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/106271.htm
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_,
Prof. Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books, New York, 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: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI_,
Jonathan Beaty and Sam Gwynne, Random House, New York, 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."
"Overt assistance from Pakistan may bring dire consequences," Jane's
Intelligence Digest, September 20, 2001
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."
"The Getaway--Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift," Seymour
M. Hersh, The New Yorker, January 25, 2002
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.[3]
4. 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.[4] 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.
"A Nation Challenged: The Conspiracy Cherge; E-Mail Sent to Flight
School Gave Terror Suspect's 'Goal'," Jim Yardly, The New York Times,
Late Edition--Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 5, February 8, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/08/national/08HIJA.html?pagewanted=1
"Threats and Responses: The 9/11 Defendant; Early Warnings on
Moussaoui Are Detailed," Philip Shenon, The New York Times, Late
Edition--Final, Section A, Page 13, Column 1, October 18, 2002
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."
["A Nation Challenged: The Conspiracy Cherge; E-Mail Sent to Flight
School Gave Terror Suspect's 'Goal'," Jim Yardly, The New York Times,
Late Edition--Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 5, February 8, 2002
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!"
["Eagan flight trainer wouldn't let unease about Moussaoui rest," Greg
Gordon, Star Tribune, December 21, 2001
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:
"Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller--An edited
version of the agent's 13-page letter," TIME, May 21, 2002
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."
"Unheeded Warnings," Michael Isikoff, NEWSWEEK, May 20, 2002 Issue
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:
"The Man Behind the Hot Memo," James Poniewozik, TIME, May 19, 2002
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238574,00.html
"FBI Was Warned of Sept. 11 Hijacker--Informant Says He Provided Facts
About Phoenix Hijacker," John McWethy, ABCNEWS, May 23, 2002
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.
"Did Bush Know?--Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures,"
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, May 18, 2002
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). In
the month of 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.
["FBI performs a nasty little sequel to whistle-blower saga," Doug
Grow, Star Tribune, December 22, 2002
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3547688.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20021223164710/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, D.C. 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.
["Face to Face With a Terrorist--Government Worker Recalls Mohamed
Atta Seeking Funds Before Sept. 11," Brian Ross, ABCNEWS, June 6, 2002
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 8.
5. 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.
["Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
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.
["Bio-Warfare and Terrorism," Francis Boyle, Professor of
International Law, University of Illinois School of Law,
Synthesis/Regeneration 30, Winter 2003
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 in
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.
["Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
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 U.S.
Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
at Fort Detrick, Maryland:
"Riddle of the spores--Why has the FBI investigation into the anthrax
attacks stalled? The evidence points one way," George Monbiot, The
Guardian, May 21, 2002
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:
"Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
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.
["The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows," Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Ph.D., June 13, 2002
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."
"Arab scientists recount hostility and harassment at military anthrax
lab," Lynne Tuohy and Jack Dolan, The Hartford Courant, December 19,
2001
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134380111_detrick19.html
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=detrick19&date=20011219
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:
"Anthrax Easy To Get Out Of Lab--Security Was Based On Trust In
Scientists," Jack Dolan, Dave Altimari and Lynne Tuohy, The Hartford
Courant, December 20, 2001
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.
"Deadly specimens disappeared from Army research lab in '90s," Jack
Dolan and Dave Altimari, The Hartford Courant, January 21, 2002
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:
"White House mail sorters anthrax-free," Sandra Sobieraj, Associated
Press, October 24, 2001
http://www.phillyburbs.com/terror/news/1024beth.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20021021135126/http://www.phillyburbs.com/terror/news/1024beth.htm
"Judicial Watch Sues Bush Administration For Anthrax Documents--Group
Says Government Had Braced In Advance For Anthrax Attacks," Associated
Press, June 9, 2002
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?
["Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm ]
*
6. 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" ["Rebuilding
America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century:
A Report of The Project for the New American Century," September
2000]. (This is the first item listed. You'll need Acrobat Reader.)[5]
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, e.g., 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, U.K., November 5, 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 U.S. military power now that the U.S. 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 U.S.A.
Why, Why, WHY???
7. 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.
8. EPILOG--HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?
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:
"Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian Democracy," Arthur E.
Rowse, 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.
["Hardcopy from US Army Intelligence and Security Command in partial
response to FOI," May 30, 2001
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 U.S.
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 U.S. and Britain. [See for example, _Israel's Sacred
Terrorism_, Livia Rokach, Third Edition: 1986, 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:
"State-Organized Crime," American Society of Criminology, 1988
Presidential Address, Prof. William J. Chambliss, from _Criminology_,
27:183-208 (1989)
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.
["An Interview with Alfred McCoy" by David Barsamian, Conducted at
University of Wisconsin-Madison, February 17, 1990, Part Three
http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/ciah3.html ]
*
[See also, _The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug
Trade_, Prof. Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books, New York, 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_, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair,
Verso, 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_, Peter Kornbluh and Malcolm Byrne (Editors), The
New Press, 1993, New York, 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
EagleEye
attention it deserves.
Scary shit.
And then of course there Hani Hanjour, the Boeing pilot.
Do you cover the controlled demolition here? I don't have the time or the
wherewithall to read it again, or I will start to cry again.
"Tim Howells" <tim.h...@nc.uas.lul.se> wrote in message
news:b5fe6585.04041...@posting.google.com...
tsarkon
Another America hating liberal loon speaks out. Do you people really
want to associate yourselves with people like this? If you vote Democrat
you're saying you do.
YYZ
"tsarkon" <tsa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FOLec.94899$Ig.87520@pd7tw2no...
> <snip black helicopter loony crap>
> Another America hating liberal loon speaks out. Do you people really
> want to associate yourselves with people like this?
If you Vote for Bush, You are associating yourself with people like that.
If you vote Democrat
> you're saying you do.
Do You Deny what the Northwoods Project states?
Do You Deny what the PNAC documents states?
Docky Wocky
"If you vote Democrat you're saying you do..."
_______________________________
More likely, you are admitting you are a nut case, too.
YYZ
"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote in message
news:H_Rec.24513$F9....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
I didn't write what you just quoted.
Did You Read the PNAC document? the one written by Cheney, wolfowitz, and Perle?
Did You Read the Northwoods project Document? Written by Gen. Lemnitzer?
Of course You didn't. Bury Your Head in the Sand.
Tim Howells
> Looks like your little article Tim, is finally going to
> start to get the attention it deserves.
Hope you're right, but I'm discouraged by the direction of
the hearings - all of their rescources and energy are going
into trivialities and squabbling. The big questions ably
raised by the Steering Committee for the Victims' Families
are being completely ignored, both by the media and the
committee politicians.
> Scary shit.
>
> And then of course there Hani Hanjour, the Boeing pilot.
Yes - I read a very interesting an intersting book "My Jihad" by
Aukai Collins, an al Qaeda member and FBI informant. He knew
Hani Hanjour, and figured he was a phony - definitely not an
Islamist. Collins was a very experienced fighter for Al-Qaeda,
and was invited to meet with Bin Laden. His FBI handlers told
him NOT to do this! I can only think that they already had
bin Laden's organization so well penetrated that another agent
inside would only have been in the way. Collins voices his own
strong suspicion that September 11 was an inside job by US
government operatives.
> Do you cover the controlled demolition here?
No - I deliberately left that out. I suspect that once the
dust settles it will be stablished that these were controled
demolitions. However - that may take some time - you know
how it is once the "expert witnesses" get involved.
Tim Howells
Steven Litvintchouk
YYZ wrote:
> Do You Deny what the Northwoods Project states?
> Do You Deny what the PNAC documents states?
Do you deny that Osama bin Laden and his collection of Third World
savages plotted and carried out 9-11?
-- Steven L.
Steven Litvintchouk
tsarkon wrote:
This is not new.
Among the hard-core left-wing, they have gone thru a zillion contortions
and spun a zillion conspiracy theories to avoid blaming Osama bin Laden
and his al-Qaeda minions.
Because they're Third World Muslims.
And the hard-core left-wing is so besotted by multiculturalism that they
will NEVER criticize ANYTHING done by Third World savages unless they
can somehow twist it into an attack on the U.S.
They gave the butchers of Biafra a pass.
They gave the butchers of Rwanda a pass.
They gave Osama a pass.
They gave Saddam a pass.
The hard-core left-wing believes that the entire Third World is made up
of sweet, innocent, gentle, peaceful, angelic people who only commit
violence when they are "provoked" into doing it by the "atrocities" of
"U.S. imperialism."
-- Steven L.
Ed Dolan
> 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.
>
> ["Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff, March 13, 1962
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf ]
> *
That is a deliberate falsification of the purpose of theJCS comment
which was in response to BG Lansdale. head of the White House Cuba
project. You were informaed of that before but you persist as you
must have an agenda.
>
> Although these plans were never carried out (they were rejected by
> President Kennedy), . . .
Yes, because the Cuba project was killed in toto as the Missile Crisis
occurred. Instead of promoting anti-American propaganda you should do
real research.
>
> . . . similar proposals WERE actually implemented during
> the 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 anti-communist sentiment among our european
> allies. ["Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian Democracy,"
> Arthur E. Rowse, Covert Action Quarterly, No. 49, Summer 1994
> http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html ][1]
That is absolutely false, a deliberate lie. CIA had nothing to do
with any of the events you claim. CAQ is not a credible source. It
was founded by CIA renegade Philip Agee and his close friends who
announced its founding during a Soviet sponsored World Yout Festival
in Havana with the main purpose to attack the CIA. Agee and his
friends were "special guests" of the World Federation of Democratic
Youth then based in Budapest. No Doubt Agee appreciates your help in
promoting the cause.
>
> 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.
>
>
> OUTLINE:
>
> 1. 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.
This does not contradict the claim they were not fanatical Islamists.
>
> 2. The hijackers were not capable of the feats of piloting that are
> attributed to them.
False. You have no evidence for this.
>
> 3. 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.
That is also false. The produc of a twisted mind.
>
> 4. 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.
Again you have no evidence but are deliberately promoting the hate
America cause.
>
> 5. The anthrax attacks:
> A) No potential terrorists had access to the advanced, "weaponized"
> form of anthrax used.
> B) All suspects lead back to U.S. 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.
You have no basis for thsi as you are utterly ignorant of anthrax.
Again a hate American comment.
>
> 6. The ultra-rightwing agenda already in place for a war against the
> Arab states.
Oh?
>
> 7. 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 is your government? Sweden where you have lived for what? 30
years? 9/11 was not instigated and supported by the U.S. government.
To so assert is another hate America claim.
>
> 8. Epilog--How could this happen? Some historical context.
>
>
> 1. 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 to 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.]
So? Why isn't that a view of an Islamic fanatic?
>
> ["Atta's Will Found--Suspected Hijacker Left Strict Instructions,"
> ABCNEWS, October 4, 2001
> 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?
Right!
>
> 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:
Good cover. And a chgance to have a fling before going directly to
the arms of Allah.
>
> "Feds investigating possible terrorist-attack links in Florida," Ken
> Thomas, Associated Press, September 12, 2001
> http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010912/10103.html
>
> "Terrorists partied with hooker at Hub-area hotel," Dave Wedge, Boston
> Herald, October 10, 2001
> 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:
Last chance to have fun before the ultimate sacrifice for Islam.
>
> "Sept. 10--Hijackers said to seek prostitutes," Shelley Murphy and
> Douglas Belkin, Boston Globe Online, October 10, 2001
> 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.
And your proof is . . .
>
> 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.[2] The locations where the hijackers received training
> include:
>
> - The Pensacola Naval Air Station
> - Lackland Air Force Base
> - Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama
> - Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama
> - The Defense Language Institute in Monterey
Never. There is no credible evidence than any were trained at any
military base. You are selecting materials that advance your hate
American views.
>
> "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases--The Pentagon has
> turned over military records on five men to the FBI," George
> Wehrfritz, Catharine Skipp and John Barry, NEWSWEEK, September 15,
> 2001
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp
>
> "Did Bush Know?--Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures,"
> Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, May 18, 2002
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html (This is a long file. A
> string search on "military sources" will take you to the right
> paragraph.)
No, Bush did not know.
>
> 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:
That is no credible evidence that CIA had anything to do with the
visas.
>
> *
> 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."
The so-called officials are unidentified nor is there anything to show
they would be knowledgeable of CIA activities.
>
> ["Visas that Should Have Been Denied--A look at 9/11 terrorists' visa
> applications," Joel Mowbray, National Review Online, October 9, 2002
> http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp ]
> *
>
> The great majority of the hijackers' visas, 15 of them, were issued at
> the U.S. consular office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman,
> formerly the head U.S. 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."
There is nothing to support this claim. CIA does not and did not
train foreigners in then U.S. More wild guesses.
>
> ["Has someone been sitting on the FBI?," Greg Palast, BBC Newsnight,
> November 6, 2001
> 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 U.S.
> government.
That is false, and utter lie.
>
> 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!
And your evidence for this is . . .
>
> In one incident Mohammed Atta applied for a loan from the Department
> of Agriculture to purchase a crop duster:
>
> "Face to Face With a Terrorist--Government Worker Recalls Mohamed Atta
> Seeking Funds Before Sept. 11," Brian Ross, ABCNEWS, June 6, 2002
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ross_bryant020606.html
SO what?
>
> 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!
Your mind is twisted.
>
> 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." ["Virginia man
> charged with helping hijackers get IDs," Associated Press, September
> 25, 2001
> http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0925_hijackers_fakeids_ap.html
No kidding. Remember when? After he was dead?
> ]
>
> 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.
Far out!
>
> 2. 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."
Untrue. Many pilots have disagreed.
>
> "September 11 - US Government accused," The News, August 3, 2002
> http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September%2011%20-%20US%20Government%20accused&edition=all
> http://web.archive.org/web/20020822131511/http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September+11+-+US+Government+accused&edition=all
>
> 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.
There is no evidence of any remote control. That is pure fanatasy.
> *
>
> 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.
> *
That's right, it is very difficult if four planes are involved. There
is no evidence of remote equipment installation.
>
> 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:
>
> "How 'shy foreigners' learned to pilot flying-bomb Boeings--All it
> took was a $4,000 flying course in Florida course in Florida flying
> school," Julian Borger and Stuart Millar, The Guardian, September 14,
> 2001
> 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 U.S.
> 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.
WHat is your basis for the assertion "MOST PROFESSIONAL PILOTS"? You
have provided no evidence to supported this, only wild speculation.
>
> 3. THE HIJACKERS LEAD BACK TO PAKISTAN'S ISI, AND THROUGH THE ISI,
> BACK TO THE CIA AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
>
> 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.
In spite of all your citations this is another lie to implicate CIA.
>
> "India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links," Manoj Joshi, Times News
> Network, October 9, 2001
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
>
> "Gen Mahmud's exit due to links with Umar Sheikh," DAWN, October 9,
> 2001
> http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/09/top13.htm
>
> "Our Friends the Pakistanis," James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal
> Editorial Page, October 10, 2001
> 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:
So?
>
> "Rifts Plentiful as 9/11 Inquiry Begins," James Risen, The New York
> Times, June 4, 2002
> 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:
So?
>
> "Powell Says It Clearly: No Middle Ground On Terrorism," Jane Perlez,
> The New York Times, September 13, 2001
> 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:
There is no credible evidence to support your conclusion except a
twisted mind.
>
> "India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links," Manoj Joshi, Times News
> Network, October 9, 2001
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1454238160
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/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.
A lie.
>
> 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:
False.
>
> "A man of wealth transformed into warrior," John Dorschner, Miami
> Herald, September 24, 2001
> http://web.archive.org/web/20011109163238/www.miami.com/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/106271.htm
>
> 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:
False.
>
> *
> 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.
And your credible evidence of this is . . . . McCoy is not a credible
source. Why don't you contact Oakley? I believe he is still alive.
>
> [_The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade_,
> Prof. Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books, New York, 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: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI_,
> Jonathan Beaty and Sam Gwynne, Random House, New York, 1993, pg. 317].
The pattern is only clear to someone who hates America. But you show
how material can be twisted by someoen with a hate America agenda.
>
> 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."
An unconfirmed opinion but it supposrts your agenda.
>
> "Overt assistance from Pakistan may bring dire consequences," Jane's
> Intelligence Digest, September 20, 2001
> 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."
A deliberate lie. Beardon does not agree.
>
> "The Getaway--Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift," Seymour
> M. Hersh, The New Yorker, January 25, 2002
> 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.
An example of a twisted mind.
>
> 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.[3]
Why don't you return to the U.S., Howells and lead the petition drive
in person? Then you can present the solid evidence (if you have
any) for the arrest of Ahmad. You cannot support with evidence the
claim that begins with "Clearly the Bush administration . . ."
>
> 4. FBI INVESTIGATIONS THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11 WERE
> DELIBERATELY SABOTAGED BY FBI HEADQUARTERS
Again an unsupported claim. DELIBERATELY?
Yep, all that happened. Obviously you have been in Sweden so long you
are unfamiliar with American bureaucracy and how it functions.
Like whom?
False, you not not of what you write>
>
> ou 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?
No one has claims Islamists were involved. There has been press
speculation/
>
> 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:
Rosenberg is FOS. Her comment is less than accurate. But it fits
your hate America agenda.
>
> *
> 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.
This is an unsupported allegation.
>
> ["Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
> Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
> 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:
Most self-styled BW experts are out of touch with reality.
>
> *
> 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.
>
> ["Bio-Warfare and Terrorism," Francis Boyle, Professor of
> International Law, University of Illinois School of Law,
> Synthesis/Regeneration 30, Winter 2003
> 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 in
> easy reach.
ANd your evidence for this is . . .
>
> 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:
So?
>
> *
> 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.
>
> ["Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
> Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
> 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 U.S.
> Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
> at Fort Detrick, Maryland:
Sorry, this is not true.
>
> "Riddle of the spores--Why has the FBI investigation into the anthrax
> attacks stalled? The evidence points one way," George Monbiot, The
> Guardian, May 21, 2002
> 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:
Not really.
>
> "Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
> Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
> 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.
Not hard to know.
>
> ["The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows," Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
> Ph.D., June 13, 2002
> 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.
That is your conclusion. Why not write an article for a U.S.
Scientific publication with your PROOF?
And your proof of that is . . . .
>
> "White House mail sorters anthrax-free," Sandra Sobieraj, Associated
> Press, October 24, 2001
> http://www.phillyburbs.com/terror/news/1024beth.htm
> http://web.archive.org/web/20021021135126/http://www.phillyburbs.com/terror/news/1024beth.htm
>
> "Judicial Watch Sues Bush Administration For Anthrax Documents--Group
> Says Government Had Braced In Advance For Anthrax Attacks," Associated
> Press, June 9, 2002
> 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?
Worthless speculations.
>
> ["Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks," Professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg,
> Federation of American Scientists, January 17, 2002-September 22, 2002
> http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm ]
> *
>
> 6. 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:
Proves nothing.
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org
>
> In particular, click on the link for "Defense and National Security,"
> and then download "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ["Rebuilding
> America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century:
> A Report of The Project for the New American Century," September
> 2000]. (This is the first item listed. You'll need Acrobat Reader.)[5]
>
> 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.
Things like this are done all the time. The military is incapable of
fighting one war, much less multiple wars this nothing is being
implemented.
Sounds anti-Semitic.
THis is essentially false, the product of a twisted mind with an
agenda.
>
> 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.
A lie with no factual basis but hate of America.
>
> 8. EPILOG--HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?
>
> 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:
And that was totaslly false, a lie, lacking any basis.
>
> "Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian Democracy," Arthur E.
> Rowse, 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.
>
> ["Hardcopy from US Army Intelligence and Security Command in partial
> response to FOI," May 30, 2001
> http://cryptome.org/inscom-foia02.htm ]
> *
> Twisted again to support your agenda.
>
> 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.
False.
>
> 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.
That is your twisted opinion.
>
> 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.
A lie.
>
> 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.
Again the producted of a twisted mind.
>
> 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 U.S.
> 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 U.S. and Britain. [See for example, _Israel's Sacred
> Terrorism_, Livia Rokach, Third Edition: 1986, Chapter 7
> http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html ]
An example of anti-Semitism.
>
> 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:
And that is more lying. Chambliss' bit is junk.
>
> "State-Organized Crime," American Society of Criminology, 1988
> Presidential Address, Prof. William J. Chambliss, from _Criminology_,
> 27:183-208 (1989)
> 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.:
McCoy lies, he is ignorant and was shown to be a sucker.
>
> *
> 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.
What you think is worthless as you demosntrate a hate America agenda.
>
> ["An Interview with Alfred McCoy" by David Barsamian, Conducted at
> University of Wisconsin-Madison, February 17, 1990, Part Three
> http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/ciah3.html ]
> *
>
> [See also, _The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug
> Trade_, Prof. Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books, New York, 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_, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair,
> Verso, London, 1998.]
Anothe deliberate lie.
>
> 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:
More twisting of material
>
> *
> 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.
More lying.
>
> [Theodore Draper, Foreword to _The Iran-Contra Scandal: The
> Declassified History_, Peter Kornbluh and Malcolm Byrne (Editors), The
> New Press, 1993, New York, 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."
Allegedly.
>
> [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.
Perhaps, but not in you fiction.
Dolan
>
> Tim Howells
Tim Howells
> Among the hard-core left-wing, they have gone thru a zillion contortions
> and spun a zillion conspiracy theories to avoid blaming Osama bin Laden
> and his al-Qaeda minions. Because they're Third World Muslims.
Steve, I've explained this to you before. You are completely
misrepresenting me - this time deliberately. There are indeed
in the world Islamic fundamentalist fanatics who are a great
danger to the United States and I condemn these ignorant and
vicious bastards unequivocally. Good enough? I also condemn
the equally brutal and dangerous Jewish and Christian fundamentalist
terrorists by the way. Now the point of my article is that it
is an undeniable fact that both the US and the Israeli governments
have used these Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups in the
past for their own purposes. In Israel's case this includes
using them to stage phony "provocations" designed to hurt the
Arabs' cause, and to benefit Israel. See the "Lavon Affair"
references already provided, eg:
[_Israel's SacredTerrorism_, Livia Rokach, Third Edition: 1986,
Chapter 7, "Terrorism to Coerce the West"
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html ]
These are undeniable fact. It is also undeniable that our own
government is engaged in a massive coverup of what happened on
September 11. The first thing Dick Cheney did after the attacks
was to go to the Congressional leadership to ensure that there
would be no investigation. Why do you think he did that?
Tim Howells