Al Qaeda a CIA asset?

[9215]

Most of us know how the CIA has used local resistance groups (later turned terrorist orgs) like the Mujahadeen in Afhanistan, the Hmong (dope growers, and scouts)of the Vietnam highlands in geopolitical proxy wars. It isn't to far of a stretch to imagine the mysterious and nearly perfectly illusive Al Qaeda are any differant.




http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html
"Was it an ‘intelligence failure’ to give red carpet treatment to the ‘money man’ behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply ‘routine’?

On the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
"When the news came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss' staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.
(...)
Mahmoud Ahmad, director general of Pakistan's intelligence service, was "very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States," Graham said.".........




........Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The "Islamic Brigades" are a creation of the CIA. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intelligence asset". Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the World.2 These "CIA-Osama links" do not belong to a bygone era, as suggested by the mainstream media.
The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo.3 More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation.4
The CIA keeps track of its "intelligence assets". Amply documented, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were always known.5 Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA.6 In other words, there were no "intelligence failures"! In the nature of a well-led intelligence operation, the "intelligence asset" operates (wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in relation to its U.S. government sponsors, but ultimately it acts consistently, in the interests of Uncle Sam.
While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links.
The foreknowledge issue focussing on "FBI lapses" is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in support of the "Islamic Militant Base", is simply not mentioned.

[DUreader]

1. ISI was rendered 'unintelligible' in Condis official transcript

listening to the recording, ISI was clearly intelligible.

Anybody remember that press conference?

[9215]

3. BOY! I would Looooove to find

this info. I don't remember this at all. Could be a deliberate and most important DOCUMENTED attempt to sever links between ISI and 9/11.

Thanks for the input.

[JackRiddler]

8. here you go

This is an item from last year May 17 - researcher John Horne discovered that the name of ISI was deleted from the WH transcript, although you could hear it clearly on the audio (which I also listened to at the time, indeed you could). Don't know if the links are still good.

One fact is, the journalist who asked the question, from the India Times, had a very heavy accent and phrased the question vaguely "$100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area." But Rice has at least understood that he is talking about ISI chief (as of Sept. 11) Ahmad Mahmud, and see in her answer how she right away jumps to say, CERTAINLY DID NOT MEET WITH ME!!!

----------------

From: "John Horne" <johnehorne@h...>
Date:  Fri May 17, 2002  7:53 pm
Subject:  Whitehouse censorship of ISI question
I have sent the following out to as many news desks & journalists & forums
as I can find, but if you find this as interesting as I do, please do the
same. I would grately appreciate it if you tell me anything, so I can
monitor the story (if it actually takes off)
***
Condoleezza Rice's press briefing is now online on the whitehouse web site
(www.whitehouse.gov) in both text and audio formats.
TEXT: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html
AUDIO: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.a.ram
In the text version there is an interesting omission.
21 paragraphs from bottom:
Q Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that -- was in
Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to
Pakistan to this group here in this area? While he was here meeting with you
or anybody in the administration?"
DR. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with
me.
The two dashes are normally included in transcripts to indicate a pause, but
Dr Rice clealy understands the question that is being asked, hence her
reply.
This excerpt is at 31:20 in the audio. Here, it is clear that the journalist
asks "... at the time that ISI chief was in Washington".
ISI is the Pakistani intelligence service.
Its chief Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad
The question relates to this story, reported initially in the times of India
"India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links
by MANOJ JOSHI 12 October 2001
'THE TIMES OF INDIA'
NEW DELHI: While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that
former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after
being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking.
Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because
of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide
bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his
removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker
Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen
Mahumd.

http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1454238160
The omission in the transcript is clearly intentional as the words "ISI
chief" are extremely audible, yet have been reported as simply dashes. Dr
Rice should certainly be aware of the allegations surrounding Mahmud Ahmad,
given her role as National Security Advisor, and her response simply serves
to brush off any further questions.
I find this omission very interesting. I believe that it warrants further
investigation which is why I am forwarding this for your attention.

[slaveplanet]

9. Big Kick

for JackRiddler

[9215]

10. Thanks alot Jack

This is excellent!

I'm going to digest this for awhile. There is also a video tape of the Ahmad Mahmud meeting in D.C. on 9/11. This video is part of The Center for Public Integrity documentary via Dutch TV on this. An extremely chilling story.

The WH is obviously very sensitive about their link to ISI.

[Eloriel]

2. Excellent

:kick:

Eloriel

[Minstrel Boy]

4. The CIA, al Qaeda and the Jeddah Visa bureau

Underreported but, I think, of great significance, is the CIA's hand in the visa bureau of the Saudi city of Jeddah. (Jeddah, coincidentally, is the centre of the bin Laden family business, Osama's birthplace and his base of operations before he was expelled.)

The CIA expedited the visas of bin Laden recruits to the US for training, and this continued long after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan.

Michael Springman is a 20-year veteran of the State Department, and witnessed the dirty business between bin Laden and the CIA through the Jeddah bureau.

This is from the transcript of a BBC documentary, Did Bush Turn a Blind Eye to Terrorism?, broadcast Nov 6, 2001:

GREG PALAST: The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah is Michael Springman.

MICHAEL SPRINGMAN: In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept 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.

PALAST: By now, Bush Sr, once CIA director, was in the White House. Springman was shocked to find this wasn't visa fraud. Rather, State and CIA were playing "the Great Game".

SPRINGMAN: 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. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 did not shake the State Department's faith in the Saudis, nor did the attack on American barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three years later, in which 19 Americans died. FBI agents began to feel their investigation was being obstructed. Would you be surprised to find out that FBI agents are a bit frustrated that they can't be looking into some Saudi connections?
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=104&row=1

Springman has said "The State Department did not run the Consulate in Jeddah. The CIA did. Of the roughly 20 Washington-dispatched staff there, I know for a certainty that only three people (including myself) had no ties, either professional or familial, to any of the U.S. intelligence services." http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/02/521.shtml

Why is this important? Fifteen of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas to travel to the US through the Jeddah office, which was run, unusually, by the CIA.

A CBC radio interview with Springman, from January 19, 2002, can be heard here: http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/dispatches/audio/020116_springman.rm.

Listen to him. He claims his decisions to deny visas to unqualified applicants were frequently overturned for "national security reasons." In the interview, he claims he was told the CIA was working with bin Laden through the Jeddah office as a channel to send al Qaeda recruits to the United States for training as terrorists. He bluntly asserts that this partnership didn't end with the expulsion of the Soviets from Afghanistan, and continued as late as September 11, 2001. Springman raised hell, and lost his job. Why would the CIA be helping bin Laden send terrorists into the US after the Soviet defeat? Springman: "It's only a few thousand dead, and what's that against the greater gain for the United States in the Middle East?"

When they arrived in the United States, five of the hijackers received training at secure military installations. This was reported as early September 16, 2001 by The New York Times. Mohammed Atta attended the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force in Alabama. Saeed Alghamdi studied at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey,

Lt. Col. Steve Butler was vice chancellor for student affairs while Alghamdi was a student. In a letter published May 26, 2002, Butler charged "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain." Butler was removed from his position and threatened with court martial.

According to its web site, the Defense Language Institute provides foreign language services to "Department of Defense, government agencies and foreign governments" to support "national security interests and global operational needs." Why was Alghamdi there? Why did he enter the US through a visa office run as a CIA operation? And what are we to make of the French Intelligence reports of the CIA meeting bin Laden himself in a Dubai hospital in July 2001?

Springmann, 20-year veteran of the State Department's foreign service, has suggested that those who died on September 11 "may have been sacrificed in order to further wider US geopolitical objectives." Anyone have a better suggestion?

[9215]

7. I've got that tape!!

I almost wrecked my car listening to Spellman's interview. I was driving down to Portland to listen to Ruppert speak back in late 2001 and found my jaw sagging in shock as he described what you cite here. Somehow hearing someone talking, someone obviously very credible and dedicated to doing his job made it more real.

Spellman's testimony was used by that British Cabinet Minister, forgot his name, as evidence of 9/11 being an inside job. I'll root around and see if I can come up with it.

Spellman should find a safe house. :scared:

[tom_paine]

5. Very possible

Who can tell? So much of Imperial Amerika is now a bald-faced lie.

All I can say was that it wouldn't surprise me, not one bit.

[Zomby Woof]

6. ZombyKick

:kick:

[Say_What]

11. CIA's MO has always been--"If they're doing something that

benefits US interests, fine--CIA doesn't CARE who they are. If the CIA needs to change sides down the road to protect US interests that's okay too. Later, when they are of no use to the CIA or the human rights stuff is beginning to surface, they can get rid of them ala Pinochet, Noriego, Saddam, etc, etc, etc. This has been the CIA's practice since their inception.

on edit: Add Osama to the list--he was trained and armed by the CIA.

[9215]

28. This is good!

Based on that take what do you think those "enemy combatants" imprisoned in Cuba are?

I've been wondering about this. It is all speculation at this point, but I think they are fall guys or patsies, like Moussaoui. They also could be "rogue elements" within Al Qaeda.

Glad you could jump in here with an overall perspective.


I do wonder about the CIA working for US interests though as opposed to private interests of those who control the CIA. IMO there is a big split in the CIA between the fascisti/Bfee camp and those really trying to keep America safe. The former camp has predominated the CIA, but is being met with formidable opposition of late.

[Say_What]

31. You've probably seen this website

but it details the dictators around the world up to 1990 that the US and it's shadow government the CIA installed and supported on behalf of US interests. One need only look at the history of Central and South America beginning in about 1954 with the overthrow of Arbenz in order to protect United Fruit. This same scenario happened around the globe--always to protect US interests. What Powell calls *democracy* in Latin America is a joke. All one has to do is look at the demographics for those countries in the CIA worldfact book or the Pan American World Health Organization. I think that the CIA world fact book get's their figures from World Health Organization.

"Communists" was nothing but a justification for the US to murder, pillage, and plunder countless countries. Terrorists is the new word today as you can see that Busho is trying to do the same in the name of *terrorism*.

---

<clips>

America's Allies
THE FRIENDLY DICTATORS
Meet the Friendly Dictators - three dozen* of America's most embarrassing "friends", a cunning crew of tyrants and corrupt puppet-presidents who have been rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to U.S. interests.

Traditional Dictators seize control through force and often are self-styled "Generals." Constitutional Dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections and are frequently mouthpieces for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. Both types of dictators are covered here, along with a few tyrannical kings. but don't look for "enemy dictators" (communists and the like) in this set of cards. These are America's allies, strange and undemocratic as they may be.

Friendly Dictators often rise to power through bloody CIA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other U.S. agencies. "Anti-communism" is their common battle cry and a common excuse for political repression. They are linked internationally through extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League (see card 17). Strong Nazi affiliations are typical - some have been known to dress in Nazi paraphemalia and quote from Mein Kampf, while others offer sanctuary for actual Nazi war criminals.

Friendly Dictators usually grow rich, while their countries' economies go down the drain. U.S. tax dollars and U.S. backed loans have made billionaires of some; others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html

[Say_What]

32. 'Fall guys in at Gitmo'

Yeah, I agree with that. Bush, in the State of the Union this year said "We have the terrorists on the run," he boasted, "we're keeping them on the run. One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice." He referred to "3000 terrorists arrested in many countries." He alluded to other terrorists killed by the forces of good.

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau02042003.html

Saul Landau and Ricardo Alarcon, President of Cuba's National Assembly, brought this to attention through articles that they wrote. My take at the time and still is that there's a witch hunt going on and there are more than likely many dead or imprisoned people who are nothing more than victims of Uncle Sam's latest hysteria.

Speaking about Moussaoui, what about the more than 1200 Middle Easterners who were jailed after 911? Without bail, without charges, without access to family or legal representation? Here's an update on that:

<clips>

September 11 detentions - Immediately following the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01, the FBI detained approximately 1,200 non-citizens for questioning and investigation. Of these, 738 were then held by the INS on immigration violations. In addition, 24 people who were already being held for immigration violations were identified for investigation in connection with the terrorist attacks. Together, these 762 are the "September 11 detainees".

...During the detention period, the names of the detainees were kept secret. Family members could not find out if their relatives were being held or if they had just disappeared. Additionally, the detainees were subject to mistreatment and abuse.

Of the 565 detainees who were held in these conditions, 497 were ultimately either released or deported. As of March 2003, 68 still remained in custody and in limbo.

....Total number of terrorist suspects caught by this method and charged: ONE (Zacharias Moussaoui, who was already in custody before 9/11).

<http://www.ospolitics.org/legalwrites/archives/2003/09/08/target_imm.php>

---

Hey, did you hear the good news? Bob Barr--that Bob Barr--said last night on PBS that in that $87 bln Transportation bill there was one paragraph that was part of Patriot Act II. It gives the FBI the right to go into our bank accounts and do basically whatever they want--, monitor them, close them, basically allows them to do whatever the f*ck they want without letting us know. And guess what? If the bank informs us about the FBI messing with our accounts THE BANK can be prosecuted!! Barr went on to say that this is how they're gonna put Patriot Act II into law. We are F*CKED!!

:argh:

[DuctapeFatwa]

33. Most of the kidnapees held at Gitmo were sold for $50 a head

to the US by the ISI. They include children, elderly people, people with mental retardation and emotional disorders.

The purpose of having them there is twofold: one, similar to the old European custom of hanging people in gibbets on the street, to serve as a warning that the king or the lord would tolerate no dissent.

Two, and perhaps more importantly, for most American voters, they represent the 9-11 hijackers. Some may be aware that those particular individuals were not involved, but they represent them. They are in the public mind "like" those who did, in that they are (mostly) brown and I believe they are all Muslims.

This practice also has historical precedent, in the US justice system today, all the way back to ancient times.

In addition to removing undesirable populations from the streets (and the polls), the American practice of accepting that even if the person jailed or executed is not the exact person who committed a crime, because it "sends a message" is nothing more than the modern day equivalent of sacrificing a few slaves to the rain god in time of drought, or in time of king wants more gold.

[9215]

37. I missed that about the $50.00 a head.

Is this for real?

[DuctapeFatwa]

41. it was all over the Asian press a couple of yrs ago

I'm sure you can google around and find it, it was not a secret, and still isn't.

[9215]

36. I saw the Barr piece on NOW

This guy was considered a major obstructionist by House Banking Committee Chair Henry Gonzalez during the BNL "Iraqgate" scandal in the early 90's. He was covering Poppy's ass. I think he has changed his mind on Bushista politics. You know things are bad when guys like Barr call the ACLU an honorable org. He sees the monster he enabled.


I'm not as pessimistic about the Patriot Act as alot of people. The thing I know is that it flies in the face of the Constitution and my hope is this will eventually galvanize a resistance across the political spectrum. It is already having a rough time going through the courts and the banks are not going to like people closing their accounts and putting the money under a mattress. If it fucks with the banking system it is doomed IMHO.

[slaveplanet]

40. Hiding NEW Patriot act legislation

in 1700 page appropriations bills ..IS ..the perfect tactic If you want to pry into individuals' financial comings and goings undetected, and avoid the bad PR of failed dog and pony shows. Keyword: undetected, with criminal penalty if the institution tips the customer off. Barr also mentioned the lack of privacy due to the datamining access by private corps(choicepoint?seisinc?). Who will be able to tell if it is the feds or these privates making the request, or if they were able to use it to frame their political enemies by making electronic changes, that info is off limits now? As for the courts, the PA is the end run. Nobody knows about this enough to pull the bulk of their money out, so it won't have significant effect on the banking system. I feel this is all designed to move us toward cashless consumerism. For those that hide under the mattress, security and the coming currency devaluation will take care of them...Buy possessible metals and dig a deep hole. I feel Gold will hit near $500 by the end of 2004. I'm not sure a Dem president can turn things around at this point, If we haven't passed it already, we're approaching the point of no return.

[9215]

42. It is when the feds take action that they will have to

cough up how, when, where they got the info. The thing I see as important is that people like Barr and the ACLU are aware of the potential for abuse and are voicing their concerns. The next thing will be real life cases and then reaction to that. Banks that fight the Fed will be more popular than those who sit back passively.

There is also the potential for the banks to be sued by customers who find that their records are being handed over to authorities without a court order--due process. IMO The Patriot Act is a paper lion for those who are willing to fight back on this level. It DOES NOT supercede the due process requirments of the Constitution; it merely conflicts with them.

[PissedOffPollyana]

45. Well, in fairness to Barr, et al...

... the old style Right wingers were far more genuine about their distaste for "big government" when it infringes on their favorite elements of freedom of choice. The Old Guard has a lot of ideas that lean far further toward Libertarianism (without the morality issues, of course) in personal freedoms.

Barr has always been a supporter of privacy issues that include things like medical records, gun ownership, etc. It used to be quite common in GOP circles until the dark day when they became the facilitator of the very thing they used to decry (Big Government). Much as Barr gives me a general feeling of being unwell, I must at least give him the respect of someone who has been consistent, at least in this regard. This is not a shift for him, but just what he has always been about.

I think the GOP will find a lot of very aggitated Right wingers to contend with this time around. PATRIOT does not sit well with a lot of Old Guard Patriots and never will.

[leftofthedial]

12. well . . . duh!

CIA invented al Qaeda. There is an internecine war within the CIA now, between those who are part of the neocon GOPNAC conspiracy and those who are actual intelligence professionals trying to serve the USA.

Al Qaeda is primarily a PR construct of the CIA's disinformation operation.

[9215]

30. Well, jeez, I didn't want to jump

to a conclusion, he. :evilgrin:

I agree on the internecine war within the CIA. This has really broken open with the Wilson/Plame affair. Those who don't toe the fascist line are "expendable assets", IMHO.

[bobthedrummer]

13. The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence {ISI} in the September 11

Attacks by Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

[Old and In the Way]

14. I recall a CNN report that mentioned 2 CIA assets inside AQ

just after 9/11.....and then this went down the memory hole.

I have no doubt that this administration was fully aware of an "event" that was to happen on US soil. The trick was (and still is) to maintain a firewall from this knowledge getting documented access to the pResident. If the "smoking gun" that this administration knew that something would happen and they let it happen to get their WOT on, I think this amounts to high treason.

BTW, here is a post that links to the 9/11 rewrite of the ISI link as well as the "new" mastermind of 9/11.....long, but very pertinent to this discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=3597

[Octafish]

17. Pakistani Intelligence trained and commanded Mujahedeen...

... for Uncle Sam. For the vanilla overview of why the Pakistanis hate our freedoms, the CBC:

Pakistan-Taliban Nexus

Atirath Aich, CBC News Online | December 2001

Pakistan is a classic case of being caught between the devil and the deep sea. Caught in the stormy politics of expansionism in south and central Asia, Pakistan has had to plot a lonely - often defiant - course toward defining its role in the region. Its support of the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan must be seen in that context.

Pakistan, contrary to what many believe, never had ambitions of being a regional power. It spent most of its time since partition from India in 1947 trying to survive the ruthless maelstrom of global politics in which it was, for the better part, a mere pawn. Hemmed in by the Soviet Union, China and India, it became a pliant American ally during the Cold War.

The United States, through Pakistan, kept a close eye not only on the Soviet Union's communist designs in central and south Asia, but also on India, an avowed supporter of the Soviet Union. But despite being a loyal American friend, Pakistan found itself in the cold every time it needed American help. In its three wars against India, Pakistan did receive equipment, but very little diplomatic or logistical backing.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/targetterrorism/backgrounders/pakistan.html

[CaptainMidnight]

15. two little words

WELL DUH!

Captain Mike

[Octafish]

16. Bin Laden comes home to roost (MSNBC — 1998)

Even if I didn't know Ashcroft had been warned off commercial flights, this 1998 reminder shows Bush must've been warned pretty darn specifically about Osama bin Bushler. From just after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania...

Bin Laden comes home to roost

His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story

By Michael Moran
MSNBC

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 —  At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.  

SNIP...

BIN LADEN’S BEGINNINGS

As anyone who has bothered to read this far certainly knows by now, bin Laden is the heir to Saudi construction fortune who, at least since the early 1990s, has used that money to finance countless attacks on U.S. interests and those of its Arab allies around the world.

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.

What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.

CONTINUED...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp%201=%201&cp1=1

[9215]

18. Thanks,

This is another article showing the CIA links to Al Qaeda, but the author also is not aware of, or for some reason doesnt' question Orrin Hatch's take on why we supported OBL.

..... Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.
“Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said......


Afghanistan was not even close to "pivotal" in bringing about the Soviet downfall. CIA head William Casey was ordered by Reagan to inflate the strength of the Soviet Union. Reagan did this to justify an increase in military spending with his "parent" company GE being the second largest supplier of electronics. The "surprise" when the Soviet Union collapsed was NO surprise. The agency that supplied the #s then took the fall for not "predicting" this. Similar to what our present Simian chief tried to do with intel on Iraq.

Here is a quote from a book I am working on:

When confronted by reporters with a question that was Teflon resistant, Reagan slipped up and told the audience what he thought: "facts are stupid things" 6(Parry, 'Iconizing Ronald Reagan', The Consortium pp.1, 12/19/98). He later 'apologized' for this statement.

Reagan would certainly not let the facts threaten the symbols he wanted to ingrain in the publics brain. Author Robert Parry said in "Icon-izing Ronald Reagan: Rewards & Lack of Punishment Reagan "took his budget director David Stockman to the 'woodshed' for doubting that 'supply-side economics' would balance the budget. Trillions of dollars of red ink later, Stockman would be proven correct"( ibid pp1). Casey was himself coerced into lying about the need for more military spending:
In the early 1980's, Reagan let his CIA director, William Casey, purge intelligence analysts who saw the Soviet Union as a declining power eager for detente with the West, rather than a leviathan plowing toward world domination. One result of the purge was the failure of an intimidated CIA analytical division to recognize the coming Soviet collapse.8(See, 'The consortium Sept. 29th, 1997)

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past "
(from '1984') George Orwell

[Octafish]

22. I remember Pruneface saying: "Facts are stupid things."

He was reading off the TelePrompTer. Then the greasy turd quickly (for him) corrected himself and said "Stubborn! Stubborn things. Facts are stubborn things." That's from memory.

Here's another: "Win one for the Gippet. Gipper. That's win one for the Gipper." Odd that the guy can't even remember his biggest movie role's nickname, having portrayed George Gipp, the late Notre Dame football great, while reading his script.

[Minstrel Boy]

19. A precedent: the CIA and Alpha 66

In 1960 Cuban ex-pat Antonio Veciana, under the guidance of the CIA, set up the terrorist anti-Castro group Alpha 66. Alpha 66 coordinates assassination efforts and attacks Soviet and Cuban interests at arm's length from the agency. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy ordered Veciana be confined to Dade County, and his Administration became as much Alpha 66's target as Castro's. The summer of '63, Veciana meets his CIA contact, code named "Maurice Bishop" (quite likely David Atlee Phillips), in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald....

September 11th isn't the new Pearl Harbor. It's the latest Dealey Plaza.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Yep...Alpha 66 is a very good example.

[9215]

27. Even a precedent for using "box cutters"

This training occured 25 years ago. they used "box cutters" :


Niven presented this info to a lawyer.

http://cryptome.org/mil-911-study.htm
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Timothy S. McNiven,
114 Grand Avenue, No. 202,
BELLINGHAM, WA
98225 1465
Dear Sir:
You attended my office on 27 June 02 and were identified as Timothy Stuart McNiven, Date of Birth 1 Nov 53, Social Security Number 537-56-87<41>. The purpose of the visit was for you to take a polygraph examination in order to support the fact that you were a member of a group assembled as part of the C Battery, 2/81st Field Artillery US Army stationed on Strassburg Kaserine, Idar Oberstein, West Germany for the purpose of developing defensive strategies against attacks by hijacked aircraft. The discussions covered the possibility of aircraft being taken over by dissidents and used to attack important buildings in the United States of America.


Admittedly this needs corroboration and more reliable source validation.

[Say_What]

34. MADE IN THE U.S.A.: HOW THE U.S. MANUFACTURES TERRORISTS

<clips>

...It also happened when the CIA trained Cuban exiles in sabotage and murder in order to undermine the Castro regime, and then left them high and dry when it shut down the program.

The terrorist-training cycle works this way:

1) The United States recruits, arms, finances and uses agents against another government. (In the case of the Mujaheddin, the training was mostly indirect, via the Pakistani ISI intelligence service, who later backed the Taliban.)

2) The United States pulls back from the common fight. Many of those Washington has trained cannot do this, if only because they do not know how to do anything else.

3) These agents turn anti-American, feeling a sense of deep betrayal.

4) They turn to other sources, often criminal, for either employment or financing of their ongoing operations. In the case of both the ex-CIA Cuban exiles and now the bin Laden ex-CIA terrorists, a source of this financing becomes international drug trafficking.

British and French newspapers have reported that the bin Laden network is earning significant funds from drug trafficking. Le Monde adds that the terrorists use money-laundering techniques originally taught by the CIA.

And many Americans will recall how Miami became a war zone in the 1970s, as competing Cuban exile groups took on both each other and U.S. law enforcement.


http://www.incite-national.org/issues/terrorists.html

[bobthedrummer]

20. Then there's Wally Hilliard and Huffman Aviation where the "highjackers"

learned how to fly.
http://www.madcowprod.com/

[mobuto]

21. Bob Graham knew?

What about Jerry Lewis? Did he know too? Has anybody thought to question Kato Kaelin? Mary Bono? Jean Chretien? Michael Jackson?

These theories are just bizarre.

[DUreader]

23. What took you so long?

Also, why the weak effort?

You usually put a little more into it.

[Octafish]

25. Mebbe not CIA. But BUSH KNEW...

Otherwise that fine fly-fishing law enforcement-preacher wannabe John Ashcan wouldn't've stopped flying commercial in July 2001. A reminder for those showing signs of long-term memory loss:

ASHCROFT FLYING HIGH

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

CONTINUED TREASON...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

[mobuto]

35. But my point is,

all of these "Bush knew" theories lack that little detail called evidence and what they say is evidence is just ridiculous. This one for instance, requires that Bob Graham, a great and patriotic Democrat who once called for Bush's impeachement, be a prime conspirator. It just doesn't make any sense.

President Clinton spent eight years battling Al Qaeda. I refuse to believe that he did so only to prop up a paper tiger so a future President Bush could get reelected or whatever.

As for Mr. Ashcroft's flying habits, I think you're always treading on thin ice whenever you try to apply logic to the actions of that notorious fan of Crisco-brand vegetable shortening.

[9215]

38. Please see my reply below.

Graham did not have to be a conspirator.

[9215]

29. Good catch!

Thanks.

IMO Graham was an unwitting participant. Indicated by his later outrage at finding a "foreign government's" involvement.

Graham: His 9-11 'Outrage'
<http://www.msnbc.com/news/879530.asp>
Here's half of a very short article. Says Graham lacked "fire in the belly" but has it now:

WHAT GAVE IT to him this time, he tells NEWSWEEK, was his experience last year overseeing a joint House-Senate inquiry into the events of 9-11. Graham says he became “outraged” by the intelligence and law-enforcement failures discovered by the inquiry-most of which, he charges, are still being suppressed by the Bush administration. The inquiry’s 400-page report can’t be publicly released because the administration won’t declassify key portions. Graham says the report documents far more miscues by the FBI and CIA than have been publicly revealed, as well as still unpursued leads pointing to “facilitation” of the hijackers by a “sovereign nation.” (Sources say the country is Saudi Arabia.) “There’s been a cover-up of this,” Graham said.
---
Don't you think that a country with a real free press would have made this headline news? "Head of 9/11 Inquiry Says Foreign Government Involved in 9/11" I think would be a newsworthy headline, no?
Lots of other shocking bits: more 9/11 intelligence failures are still classified than have been revealed, leads pointing to foreign government involvement remain unpursued, and, by the way, that country is Saudi Arabia.
Of course, Isikoff has been breaking stories tying 9/11 to Saudi Arabia, so he is amenable to that idea, but he conveniently forgets that Graham has said there were "foreign governments" - plural - whose involvement in 9/11 remains classified. Another country is most likely Pakistan, as I argue in this essay:

[mobuto]

39. Well, fine

I think its been clear for years that members of the Saudi Government have been helping those Wahabbi radicals who spend time in Qaeda circles. Its been clear that the Bushies have shied away from applying significant pressure to the Saudis because of their control over the flow of oil.

But two things are clear.

1) Whatever the culpability of certain sections of the Saudi Government, it is in the ultimate interest of the House of Saud to eliminate Al Qaeda and weaken the influence of Wahabbi lunatics. It appears that they just now may be beginning to realize that.

2) Saudi Arabia is not the United States. If we know now that influential Saudis knew then about the 9/11 attacks, then that's huge. But that doesn't indicate a grand conspiracy or whatnot involving the American government, it just emphasizes what we already know - that Saudi Arabia is infested with Wahabbist lunatics.

[9215]

44. Good points

I've got a few questions

1) Whatever the culpability of certain sections of the Saudi Government, it is in the ultimate interest of the House of Saud to eliminate Al Qaeda and weaken the influence of Wahabbi lunatics. It appears that they just now may be beginning to realize that.

What is the ultimate interest of the House of Saud? Please remember that CIA head Allen Dulles put the House of Saud in power. What evidence do we have the Saudis are doing anything about Al Qaeda in their midst. All they seem to be doing is preventing investigations.They have presented nothing on the progress of their investigations. Bush said that the US will go into countries that harbor terrorists, so why not Saudi Arabia?

2) Saudi Arabia is not the United States. If we know now that influential Saudis knew then about the 9/11 attacks, then that's huge. But that doesn't indicate a grand conspiracy or whatnot involving the American government, it just emphasizes what we already know - that Saudi Arabia is infested with Wahabbist lunatics.

As indicated in the topic there are plenty of precedents for the CIA involvement with groups like Al Qaeda. Chossudovsky's work has never been challenged. But that aside there is much more evidence to pointing to a Saudi link to Al Qaeda (15 of the 19 purported hijackers were Saudi) than the latter's link to Iraq and yet we attack Iraq. The US as represented by the BFEE is barking up the wrong tree and doing so deliberately IMO.
The money trail goes to Saudi Arabia. It is of vital interest to the US from a national security perspective to cut this money flow and yet we do NOTHING.
Something really stinks here. Why are we attacking countries only to find out in hindsight the reasons for attacking are fallacious. IMO it is because Al Qaeda, as we popularly percieve them, are a myth.

When FBI Deputy Director John O'Neil "The Man Who Knew" (Frontline) went to Yemen to investigate the USS Cole bombing he determined the Saudis are behind terrorism and confronted CIA head Louis Freeh with his lackluster approach to the problem:

The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. corporate oil interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it. - ex-FBI Deputy Director John P. O’Neill - late July 2001 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4321860-103677,00.html) statement made to French authors Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, authors of "Forbidden Truth"

Australian police have traced the Bali bombings (Australia's 9/11)money source to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Prince Bandar's wife, Bandar a friend of the Bushies, was giving to a charity that supplied money to Al Qaeda. Where are the investigations into this? If there have been investigations what have been the results?

It is obvious people in high places are trying to cover up these links and in so doing are enabling Al Qaeda to operate at will.

[mobuto]

46. Fair enough

What is the ultimate interest of the House of Saud?

I'd say the ultimate interest of the House of Saud is keeping Arabia Saudi -- staying alive and in power.

Please remember that CIA head Allen Dulles put the House of Saud in power.

I think you're being a little anachronistic. There's no doubt that the US backed the Saudis from very early on, but Abd Al-Aziz took over the country in 1932 when the CIA wouldn't be established until after it was authorized by the National Security Act of 1947.

What evidence do we have the Saudis are doing anything about Al Qaeda in their midst. All they seem to be doing is preventing investigations.They have presented nothing on the progress of their investigations. Bush said that the US will go into countries that harbor terrorists, so why not Saudi Arabia?

That's an excellent question, and one for which both Mr. Bush and the Saudis need to be held to account. From what I understand, Saudi Arabia is only now beginning to crack down hard on the "charitable giving" that funds Qaeda, and to limit support to extremist clerics. One sign of the latter is that the Saudi media has started to criticize the religious extremists. Until recently, Saudi control prevented any such criticism, so clearly there's been a policy change.

The Saudis remind me of Jack Kennedy's line, that in the past that "those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." They've been trying to use the Wahabbis for suppot even though Al Qaeda's greatest goal is the destruction of the Saud. It seems that now, two years after 9/11, the Saudis may finally be getting the message. And of course we're seeing continued attacks in Saudi Arabia, like the recent bombing of the housing compound.

As indicated in the topic there are plenty of precedents for the CIA involvement with groups like Al Qaeda.

No there are no precedents for CIA involvement with groups like Al Qaeda, because there are no groups like Al Qaeda. It is sui generis.

But that aside there is much more evidence to pointing to a Saudi link to Al Qaeda (15 of the 19 purported hijackers were Saudi) than the latter's link to Iraq and yet we attack Iraq.

That reflects far more on the confused and cynical priorities of the neo-Conservative cabal surrounding Mr. Bush than it does on Al Qaeda or anyone else.

Saudi Prince Bandar's wife, Bandar a friend of the Bushies, was giving to a charity that supplied money to Al Qaeda.

Actually, that's already been figured out. There's no question but that Prince Bandar and his wife oppose Al Qaeda. I think that more reflects the systematic problems of Saudi "charitable giving," without accountability or honesty.

I don't think you've proven your case. Yes the Saudis are in many ways complicit, and yes, the Bush Administration has cynically taken advantage of the September 11 attacks to effect unrelated prior policy goals, but you're still a long way off from proving a conspiracy or prior knowledge or anything of that sort.

[9215]

50. No Sources????????????????

I started to write a response to this and pulled it. You are just trying to get me to reinvent the wheel.

It is obvious that you are trying to tie up my time refuting your inanities.

YOU MUST BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH SOURCES.


This is a perfectly meaningless response:

I said: But that aside there is much more evidence to pointing to a Saudi link to Al Qaeda (15 of the 19 purported hijackers were Saudi) than the latter's link to Iraq and yet we attack Iraq.

Your reply: That reflects far more on the confused and cynical priorities of the neo-Conservative cabal surrounding Mr. Bush than it does on Al Qaeda or anyone else.

Your response is meaningless.


In sum you have not provided a refutiation of anything. Just attempted to string me out repeating what has already been shown on this board ad nauseum, which is, coincifuckingdently or not, a primary tactic of those trying to disappear a subject. You are being disengenous at best.

"sui generis"?--Jeez, even trying a semantic squabble.

[Astarho]

24. I've been thinking that for a while now (nt)

[bywho4who]

43. Powerful Nation

This is old news,the most powerful nation on the earth has to create it's own enemies. Who in there right mind would attack the U.S.?





:smoke: :hippie:

[durutti]

47. They Didn't "Later Become" Terrorist Groups

Almost of them (including the Afghan resistance) targeted civilians when the U.S. was sponsoring them.

[stickdog]

48. Al Qeada is a Western intel construct.

What "al Qaeda" means is "those evil doers responsible for any act of terrorism sophisticated enough to have the earmarks of a mil/intel operation."

[CaptainMidnight]

49. New Shimmer is a dessert topping AND a floor polish!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=722444