WORLD TRADE CENTER SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2001. DOUBTS AND REVELATIONS.
9/11 - ONE OF THE BIGGEST FRAUDS IN MANKIND´S HISTORY.
THE U.S. REPORT IN JULY 2003 HIDED MORE THAN EXPLAINED.
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HIDED CRUCIAL MATERIAL IN NOVEMBER 2003.
JULY 2004. THE COMMISSION IGNORED THE CIA-AL-QAIDA CONNECTIONS.
MICHAEL MOORE´S FILM FAHRENHEIT 9/11 TELLS THE BACKGROUNDS.
__________________________________________________________________
These doubts remain in force in spite of the obvioulsy fabricated "confession" by Osama bin Laden. According to a video tape published in December 2001 by US officials Osama bin Laden has confessed his responsibility for the 11-09 attacks.
Yet the confession is not very significant. All the process is anyway much more complicated. Additionally, the videotape in question is quite obviously a reconstruction of a general-type bin Laden statement of October 20th. For the US propaganda machinery it is easy to produce such "evidences". This is by no means the first time the US justifies its aggressions by faked evidences. The new videotapes found in December 2001 do not change anyhting either. They are not a valid evidence for any purpose.
In the end of 2001 and in 2002-2004 still more doubts have become to publicity even in the US because of the obvious obligatory reason that it is now time for explanations for being caught for self-caused or self-organized crimes.
In spite of world´s most effective intelligence agencies´ work Osama bin Laden has been found up to 2003. Obviously he will be never found. Why?
The US report in July 2003 still hides essential things. Portions of the fresh report concerning Saudi Arabia were declared secret. Why?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 11 terror attack study details US intelligence failure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xinhuanet 2003-07-25 02:57
WASHINGTON, July 24 (Xinhuanet) -- The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were preventable, but the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other US intelligence agencies failed to act, a US congressional investigation has concluded.
The report, by a joint committee of the US House of Representatives and Senate intelligence panels, found that prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA failed to act on intelligence it had about hijackers, the FBI was unable to track al-Qaida in the United States, and key National Security Agency communications intercepts never were circulated.
The CIA, for nearly two years before the attacks, knew about the terror connections between two hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi, who in 2000 moved to San Diego, according to the 900-page declassified version of the report.
The report said that the CIA and FBI failed to counter the threat from al-Qaida even though they had know for years that its leader, Osama bin Laden, was determined to attack the United States.
More than 3,000 people were killed in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.
After 9 public hearings and 13 closed sessions by the committee last year, the report is the most comprehensive account yet of lapses that allowed 19 Arabs to hijack four commercial airliners without being detected by intelligence or law enforcement authorities.
While saying the attacks could have been prevented, the report does not blame either agency for overlooking specific information that would have thwarted the terrorism.
The report found that the National Security Agency (NSA), which eavesdrops on worldwide communications, may have had the earliest knowledge of the extremist leanings of Midhar and Alhazmi.
In 1999, the NSA intercepted the conversations in early 1999 indicating that two future hijackers were connected to a suspected al-Qaida facility in the Middle East, but that information was not passed on to other agencies.
The report spends substantial time discussing failures by the FBI to shift its priorities from crime-fighting, which had been at the heart of its mission for decades, to preventing terrorism before Sept. 11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions.
Did the western intelligence agencies know about the attack in advance? Did they ignore what they knew or were they possibly even involved into the operation?
Is the attack on Afghanistan connected with NATO´s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999? In both cases imperialism´s interest is to get closer to the Caspian oil areas.
There is in fact so far no evidence for anything. Possibly some "evidences" will appear. When evaluating that material there is reason to remember the US engineering of evidences in the Milosevic- and Lockerbie -processes.
Talebans have got their political power from USA. USA backed Talebans when they fighted against Soviet Union.
One wittness, a Pakistani man who was arrested in the USA as suspected for the 9-11 incidents, died in his cell. The reson is unknown. Are we following the same path like in the Kennedy murder case? All people connected with the 9-11 have died or will die?
The French daily Le Figaro has revealed in October 2001 that Osama bin Laden and a CIA agent have been in touch with each other in July 2001.
According to the BBC news on September 18th, 2001 the attack on Afghanistan was planned in July 2001.
According to realiable Pakistani sources in December 2001 USA is building a missile system in Afghanistan. These missiles ar targeted against China. Here we no doubt see one real reason for the attack on Afghanistan. In addition to get closer to the Caspian oil also territorial occupations in Asia for further agressions especially against the Red East belong to the manuscript. The 9-11 has absolutely nothing to do with that kind of unscrupulous purposes and acts.
In January 2002 president Bush ordered to stop further investigations of 9.11.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There are strange things:
1. The passport of one hijacker miraculously made it through the crash, conflagration, and building collapse to float conveniently down intact to be picked up by a passer-by.
2. One of the bags allegedly not loaded on the Boston plane had a Koran and a fuel calculator and "how to fly" instructions. How convenient. The only piece of baggage that didn't get loaded was this incriminating evidence pointing to an Islamic perpetrator. The pilots knew very well how to fly. Very well, they were all incredible, especially the one that flew into the Pentagon, clipping the tops of the lightpoles as they flew unerringly toward their target.
3.The regular security control arrangements at the airports failed four times at the same time. Coincidence?
4. Flying a modern heavy large airliner by manual methods is extremely difficult. There are only two alternatives in this case . Either they were flown by real professionals who committed suicides or the planes were steered to the targets automatically, which is technically quite possible by assembling Instrumental Landing System -type flight control equipments close to the targets.
Should professional pilots commit suicides? Not very likely...
Using automatic approching system needs high technical know-how and modern aviation technology. Would for instance Afghanistan or Iraq have all this? Maybe, but not very likely.
Some sources have referred to the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad. They have the necessary know-how.
Usually in case of an airliner accident the so-called black-box is the most important matter. In this case not... the above mentioned "passport" seems to be more interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ulterior Motive for "War on Terrorism".
The United States has craftily exploited the world's opposition to terrorism. After the "September 11 terrorist attack" of last year it gained the sympathy of the world, and succeeded in forging alliances with many countries... But the international community has been astonished by the measures it has since adopted.
Against Its Sincere Expectations.
The international community expressed its sympathy and solidarity with the US after its shock at the death of thousands of innocent people and its righteous indignation at the atrocity.
The world hoped that this appalling incident would never be repeated. Therefore, at the time the international community denounced the terrorists, and insisted on the adoption of drastic measures to eradicate terrorism. The Secretary-General of the United Nations appealed for the elimination of dis putes, poverty and disease, which he said provide the motive for terrorism.
Islamic countries and many others said that settlement of the Middle East issue, the chief motive for the "September 11 terrorist attack", was urgently required. Almost all countries, including the allies of the US, urged the Bush administration to scrap its self-righteous unilateralist stance immediately.
In truth, the arrogance and arbitrariness of the Bush administration have long been the target of criticism or even hatred across the globe. The US has too often violated the sovereignty and dignity of small countries, had no hesitation in clashing even with large countries, poured cold water on the efforts of the rest of the world to forestall negative climatic changes, persisted in its missile defence plan, and driven the globe to a state of great instability threatening it with catastrophe. This led to a situation in which the US was felt by many to deserve extreme punishment. Therefore, the international community expected the US to remove the causes of its negative image.
But the American administration disregarded this expectation. Bush proclaimed war against Afghanistan without any evidence of its involvement in the attack, and made his troops randomly rain modern bombs and missiles on the unfortunate Afghan people, who had already suffered the torture of two decades of civil war. This bloodshed went against the ardent wish of mankind for peace.
When the international community insisted that war made it impossible to eradicate terrorim and led only to a vicious spiral of tit-for-tat retaliation, Bush menacingly declared that those who are not "with" the US are its enemies. Turning a deaf ear to the advice of those countries which had joined the "anti-terrorism coalition", the US administration affirmed its plan to widen its anti-terrorist campaign to include Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Indonesia, the Philippines and many other countries, even the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which does not belong to the Islamic bloc. The US seems anxious to make the whole world a theatre of war and drown it in a sea of blood.
To the surprise of the world, the US unilaterally withdrew from the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" on December 13, 2001. When the US carried out "anti-terrorist operations" in Afghanistan, Russia made a more important contribution to the campaign than any other country. Yet the US disregards Russia's interests, and what is worse, gives it no credit. Having reduced the "ABMT" to a mere scrap of paper, the US has become able to further accelerate the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
This, inevitably, will spark another global arms race. Consequently, the peace and security of the world are now threatened. To conclude, the US has mercilessly exploited the sympathy and support given by the international community after the "September II terrorist attack". It is clear that this was its intention from the outset.
Strong suspicions.
When the "September II terrorist attack" occurred in the US, the Bush administration lost no time in concluding that an orthodox Muslim, Ossama Bin Laden, and his AI-Quida Network were to blame. It proceeded to launch the Afghan war recklessly against Bin Laden and the Taliban that sheltered him without producing any evidence of his involvement nor con vincing the world of the necessity of military action. The US appears to have had no intention of getting to the bottom of the incident and finding ways of addressing the underlying causes. It has, therefore, been suspected that the US has deliberately buried the truth behind death and destruction.
This is testified to by the fact that it has completely isolated the members of the AI-Quida Network and the Taliban who were taken prisoner from the outside world, and is now attempting to try them at unofficial military tribunals.
In the past Bin Laden and the Islamic fundamentalist groups fought against the former Soviet Union, with the strong backing of the US and in close cooperation with the US Central Intelligence Agency. A panic was created by the posting of letters containing anthrax in the US after September 11. It was widely said that this might be the work of the AI-Quida Network or Iraq, but it has now been revealed that it was done by Americans themselves. This merits attention.
In addition, five major issues have arisen surrounding the "September 11 terrorist attack".
First, Ahmad, director of the Army Intelligence Service Bureau (ISI) of Pakistan was released from office on October 8, 2001, when the US began to bomb Afghanistan. He was an influential confidant of the Taliban, and was known as one of Pakistan's most powerful men. It is said that he gave 100,000 US dollars to Muhammad Ata, one of suspected airliner hijackers, and that he held secret talks with leading figures of the CIA and the Pentagon in Washington on September 11, 2001. Apparently, the US made Ahmad lead the Islamic fundamentalist groups to commit terrorism in its country or engineer it in person, and ultimately removed him in a bid to cover up the truth.
Second, the Bush family and a succession of senior figures in the US administration have long enjoyed close ties with the Laden family through the Kalrail Corporation of the US. The former American President, father of President George W. Bush, met members of the Laden family twice. Former US Weinburger had a close relationship with the Laden family. This should not be ignored simply because the family had become estranged from Ossama.
Third, somebody had already anticipated the "September II terrorist attack" and taken a hand at the stock and bond market of the US. According to an investigation made by the regulatory authorities of the US, some investors disposed of aviation, insurance and travel agency stocks, which slumped after the terrorist attack, shortly before September II. They had also bought government bonds due in five years, whose value usually rises at times of crisis, thus earning profits of more than five billion dollars. It is too simple to conclude that those groups or individuals possess supernatural powers of foresight.
Fourth, the US authorities reacted abnormally on the day of the attack. The third passenger plane hit the Pentagon 40 minutes after the second plane crashed into the World Trade Centre. Those minutes were long enough for the US administration to have taken emergency measures and put US forces on alert. Nevertheless, the Pentagon, which is the operational headquarters of the US Army, was left defenceless, and fell victim to the air attack. Apparently no action was taken so that the premeditated attack could be carried out to maximum effect.
Fifth, nobody was dismissed for the terrorist incident. The continental US was attacked from the air for the first time in its history, and thousands of its citizens were killed, yet the President, the Secretary of Defence, the director of the CIA, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and all other officials who are responsible for the security of the US have not been condemned and kicked out over the incident. On the contrary, they are in higher spirits than ever. Obviously they do not believe that they commit-ted an unforgivable blunder in failing to protect their country against terrorism, for they behave as if they have performed the greatest exploits.
Some may not be sure. But this is not a surprise nor an incident without precedent. Many recall that Hitler engineered an attack on a broadcasting station in his own country and charged Poland with it, thus providing the pretext to unleash World War II on September 1, 1939. Former American President Roosevelt had already learned that the Japanese army would attack Pearl Harbour in Hawaii on December 8, 1941, but took no countermeasures against it on purpose. As a result, thousands of Americans were killed in a matter of minutes, accompanied by enormous military losses.
Of course, Roosevelt calculated that such an attack would provide the greatest political benefits, as befits a pragmatic American politician. At the time the American people were passing the time in peace, remaining indifferent to the war which raged on other continents. Therefore, Roosevelt believed that an unusual shock, or immense self-sacrifice, was needed to awaken his people and make them join the war.
What was Bush after?
Purpose of "Anti-Terrorism".
Bush faced a number of headaches prior to September II. Truth to tell, he was defeated by Gore, the Democratic Party candidate, in the 2000 presidential election. He scraped into the White House by winning the election on the basis of fraud. As a result, his position was very weak. Whether accidental or the result of good governance, the US economy continued to grow during Bill Clinton's two terms in office. Strangely enough, it began to stagnated and then decline after Bush came to power. His self-righteous and unilateralist foreign policy has met with opposition around the world. In particular, the global trend toward multipolarization has become more marked than ever, seriously threatening the world domination strategy of the US.
Bush quickly lost popularity and provoked anger both at home and abroad. In May last year the US was ousted from the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Narcotics Control Committee, on which it had been for decades. This clearly testified to the widespread opposition to Bush's policies.
It was urgent for Bush to gain sympathy and solidarity from both his own people and the international community. In addition, he had to find a justification for his world domination strategy, and repay the weapons industry conglomerates for providing immense sums of money for his presidential election campaign. He was literally forced to pursue a scheme which could serve a double or treble purpose.
Bush thought fit to claim to stand for "anti-terrorism". Many countries, large and small, have been troubled by terrorism, which is a major problem in today's world. Bush's thoughts appear to have been as follows: If I hold high the banner of "anti-terrorism", I shall be welcomed by the international community and revered as leader of the world. Since the "war on terrorism" is a battle with terrorists, I shall be able to increase military spending. The war industry monopolies will thank me for this and donate larger amounts of money for my political activities. If the "war on terrorism" proceeds in depth and leads to a real war, I shall be able to wield emergency powers as I see fit and defeat an unworthy "enemy" with ease. I shall be regarded as an "American hero", and suddenly garner greater support from the people.
This necessitated the creation of an environment in which he could rant about a "war on terrorism" and maximize its effect. It is therefore widely assumed that a surprise attack was made on New York and Washington, the financial and political hearts of the US respectively. Bush might possibly regret the destruction of deluxe skyscrapers and the death of thousands of innocent people to some degree, but he believes this to have been the equivalent of making a small investment in order to earn a fabulous sum of money.
At present Bush smiles a complacent smile, thinking that all is going well. He said boastfully: "The historic opportunity to make the world freer
than ever has arrived for this great country. I give my word that I shall prolong this opportunity." 92 percent of American citizens supported him in the wake of the attack, an all-time high in US history. US military spending, too, has sharply increased. The military budget will amount to nearly 380 billion dollars in the next fiscal year, a 48-billion-dollar increase on the present year's figure. On the pretext of the "war on terrorism" the US has "glorified" the first year of the 21st century with armed conflict, and put Russia, the European Union and other refractory countries in the straitjacket of the "anti-terrorism alliance". At present the US feels free to attack any country that incurs its displeasure under the pretence of the "war on terrorism". The New York Times wrote: "President Bush has been granted an unlimited hunting license by the September II attack." The US army, which has thrust into countries affiliated with the former Soviet Union in order to wage the Afghan war, seeks to establish a long-term presence in Central Asia. The US has consequently tightened an iron ring around Russia and China. This is of special note.
Bush will inwardly hope that this situation will prevail indefinitely. This is clearly shown by the fact that Bush has proclaimed this year a "year of war" and threatened Iraq, Iran, the DPRK and other countries with military action. Yet some wonder whether Bush's dream can come true. Today the people of the world are beginning to see America's ulterior motive for the "war on terrorism". Many countries have expressed their determination not to foolishly dance to Bush's tune again. This is true even of close allies of the US. The French minister of cooperation, Josselain, declared that such happenings as in Afghanistan should not be repeated. Fischer, the foreign minister of Germany, directly censured the US for its pursuit of hegemony and its military threat against the international community, sternly warning it against any attempt to unilaterally shape the future of the world. The reality the US must face is that it can never fulfil the black-hearted ambition behind its "war on terrorism".
KOMINFORM
__________________________________________________________________
Collected doubts. Analyses and reports. Chronological order.
__________________________________________________________________
September 2001
Who is the Beneficiary from all this?
by Monzer Zimmo
Regardless of disagreements on American foreign policies, most media outlets seem to have accepted the theory that the horrible events of September 11, 2001 resulted from American foreign policies. The basic premise in this theory is that victims, or enemies, of American foreign policies committed the terrorist attacks on American targets. Let us see if that basic premise withstands the test of reason.
Those horrifying acts were committed with a high level of sophistication, in terms of planning, coordination, and accuracy of execution. Such sophistication suggests that those who dreamed up the attacks must have also considered the consequences of their plot. They must have also calculated who would benefit from their actions. Consider the volume of resources, level of training, intelligence gathering capabilities, and the pragmatic cold calculating ruthless minds behind such operation. Then consider whether it is reasonable to accept that the perpetrators did not think of consequences and did not calculate who would benefit from their acts. Something is missing from this picture.
The perpetrators of those unspeakable crimes must have intended to benefit from them. They must have calculated the outcome and must have considered the possible reactions of the American public. More importantly, those criminals must have carefully put in place diversion tactics to focus public attention on someone else other than them; and preferably their enemies.
All media outlets seem to be focusing their reporting on Arab or Muslim "suspects". No one is examining the possible beneficiaries of those criminal acts. No one is considering the possibility that those horrible crimes were not reactions to American foreign policies, but deliberate acts to firmly position such policies in a certain direction. No one is searching for a party who has the sophistication, the means, the intelligence gathering capabilities, the motivation, the opportunity to benefit, the media manipulation skills, and the burning desire to divert world attention from its own actions against innocent civilians under its occupation. No one is suspecting a party that is eager to obtain a license to oppress the people it occupies as it wishes and with impunity. No one is considering the possible, direct or indirect, involvement of the state of Israel!
Source:
by courtesy & © 2001 Monzer Zimmo <mailto:editor@mediamonitors.net>
http://www.mediamonitors.net/monzerzimmo1.html
________________________________________________________________
September 2001
BBC: Attack on Afghanistan was already in the works.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.
And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
_______________________________________________________________
September 2001
NEWS EMBARGO AFTER ISRAELI LINK LEAK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn/message/16718
Re: NEWS EMBARGO AFTER ISRAELI LINK LEAK
This report may constitute yet another fragment of evidence suggesting that the 9 11 attacks may have involved strategic deception. We do not endorse the information, but pass it on in the public interest. EcoNews Service, Vancouver, BC
NEWS EMBARGO AFTER ISRAELI LINK LEAK
Stern-Intel (Canada). A US military intelligence source revealed details of an internal intelligence memo that points to the Israeli Mossad intelligence service having links to
the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The intelligence source, who requested his name be withheld, confirmed the internal US intelligence memo circulated four weeks ago described information that pointed to the threat of a covert Israeli operation on US soil to turn mass public opinion against Palestinian Arabs via an apparent terrorist attack on US interests that would give Israel the green light to implement a large scale military onslaught against the Palestinian Arab population.
The 11 September attack has been described by experts as being too sophisticated for a lone terrorist group to execute.
"This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to be extremely familiar
with both air force one flight operations, civil airline flight paths and aerial assault tactics on sensitive US cities like Washington."
Stated David Stern an expert on Israeli intelligence operations.
The attacks targeted the Pentagon, World Trade Center towers, with the White House and Air Force One also being targets according to the FBI.
"The attacks have certainly turned US public opinion firmly back in Israel's favor after 11 months of Palestinian uprising, heavy criticism of Israel over war crimes allegations and
racism by a UN conference in Durban. The attacks serve no Arab group or nation's interests but their timing came in the midst of international condemnation of Israel for its policy of death squad assassination of Palestinian political and police figures" added Stern.
If verified, the news of Israel's involvement in the US attack will come as no surprise to intelligence experts. The state of Israel has a long history of covert operations against
Western targets with attacks on the King David Hotel, USS Liberty, murder of a Scandinavian UN envoy as well as espionage against the US during the Jonathan Pollard case.
On Wednesday the US defense department issued a warning to its officials to halt the leak of information on the investigation which it says is happening on a daily basis since the attacks occurred.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn/message/16718
WORLD-ACTION
http://www.world-action.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
September 2001
Suicide Hijacker Alive & Well in Jeddah
Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit
Mr. Fisk calls attention to some of the gaping holes that can't be easily explained away -- as Reuters tried to do over the weekend -- by "differences in transliteration of Arabic names that are common when dealing with the Niddle East," as if it was somehow the fault of the Middle East. source - "Marpessa Kupendua" <nattyreb1@home.com> 17 September 2001
'Suicide Hijacker' an Airline Pilot Alive and Well in Jeddah
by Robert Fisk in Beirut
A man named by the US Department of Justice as a suicide hijacker of American Airlines flight 11 -- the first airliner to smash into the World Trade Centre -- is very much alive and living in Jeddah.
Abdulrahman al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking -- as well as being dead -- and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation.
None has so far been forthcoming. It is possible that the hijacker adopted Mr al-Omari's identity but, if he had been using the same false name while training as a pilot in the US, he would presumably have been uncovered. [A big presumption, Mr. Fisk!!]
That is not the only error on the list of hijackers. The name of Ziad Jarrah -- identified as the pilot-hijacker of United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania -- was misspelt "Jarrahi." He was a Lebanese whose family, living in the Bekaa Valley, spoke to him just two days before his death but who still refuse to believe that he was involved.
Mr al-Omari's first name -- Abdulrahman -- was later given out by the US authorities as "Abdulaziz" but there can be little doubt that it referred to the pilot who lives in Jeddah. The Americans described him as a father of four and Mr al-Omari does have four children, all of whom live with him and his family in Saudi Arabia's second city. He has refused to talk to reporters and -- in the words of one prominent Saudi journalist -- "is one nervous guy."
____________________________________________________________________
Sept 19th, 2001
Verlag Neue Einheit <verlag@neue-einheit.com>
*Against the Web of Lies by the US' Propaganda - Organize the Necessary Uncoverings!*
As to the US' and our media's propaganda about Osama bin Laden's Islamistic fundamentalist terrorism being the decisive originator of the monstrous attacks in the US, only one thing can be said: *it is completely implausible.* The policy of large-scale imperialist interventionist wars against real but also alleged supporting countries, and of reactionary interventions into the inner conditions of many countries, ours included, as it is being announced now, must be fought with utmost resolution by the Left if it does not want to loose any legitimation at all, *and first of all it is the priority task of the Left to tear up the web of lies.*
What has one to start from in doing that:
- the Islamistic fundamentalist terrorism of bin Laden and other groups is a product of the US herself and one of her important helpers up to today. Since 1985 at the latest the US herself has directed the equipping of these groups with modern weaponry, their financing and training as well as their massive recruitment from a lot of Islamic countries, with close allies like Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia acting as go-betweens, in order to at first make use of them in the Afghan war. Without the US these groups would be almost nothing. Later such organisations like for example the very bin Laden organisation turn up in other focal points where the US is involved but prefers covert operations, as in Bosnia, in Chechnia and in Albania-Kosovo. As comrades in arms of the KLA, for example, up to today they immediately serve the intentions of the US. There have in fact been also some attacks, as in 1993 on the WTC, on the US embassies in Africa and on the destroyer Cole which are said to have been committed by Osama bin Laden against the US, but they are acts which all the more didn't scratch the US' regime and were in fact rather of propagandistic value.
For the US' webs of lies by which they mislead about the true character of the Islamistic fundamentalist terrorism in its own and her own interest, such acts are even indispensable. Therefore these occurrences do not contradict the basic assessment of the very close liaison between the Islamistic fundamentalist terrorism and the US'foreign policy.
- That the bin Laden organisation is capable on its own of such attacks as now is correctly put into doubt for a lot of reasons. Whereas it does not at all seem out of the question that people from these circles were involved in the attacks, a leading role of Osama bin Laden or an organisation dependent on him is decidedly put into question by the enormous effort in terms of secret service work and of general staff work required for the preparation. It is really too conspicuous that on the one hand Osama bin Laden as the alleged international top terrorist is said to have been under search and the mostintense supervision by secret services for years, that from this direction monstrous attacks are announced and even concrete warnings are transmitted to the US in time, and on the other the US government then declares that her secret services have been abolutely clueless.
- The US apparently uses far-fetched allegiations to get the interventionist war. This should not come as a surprise for leftists and anti-imperialists, in the face of the grave crises of the US and the whole Western capitalism in general. They have lost control of the situation in the Middle East and in other regions of the world. The economic crisis threatens to become a crash, and so it did of course prior to the attacks. On the other hand the Islamic fundamentalism, with the regime in Iran as an example, is confronted by the increasing question of the cheated masses what are its real achievements. The social crisis in Iran - and not only there but in the whole realm of Islamic dominance - is burning, and organisations like Hamas do not make headway as the US who supports Israel, has at the same time its fingers in the Islamic fundamentalism, covered only a little bit.
For the reasons mentioned nobody who thinks politically can avoid scrutinizing the hypothesis that as well in certain ultrareactionary forces of the US as in Islamic fundamentalist forces there is an interest in such occurrences. For the US as she is seeking a way out in war hysteria and wars and for that needs reasons, occasions, up to provocations; for the Islamic fundamentalism as it must show that allegedly something happens against the "Big Satan".
The whole Left as well as other forces not interested in new imperialist wars of intervention must make a public issue of these and possibly more connections, refute the lies and do the necessary clearing up.
Walter Grobe
Editorial staff of Neue Einheit
__________________________________________________________________
Sept 22, 2001
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html)
Jonathan Steele, Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and Ed Harriman
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, which were allegedly masterminded by the Saudi-born fundamentalist, a Guardian investigation has established.
The threats of war unless the Taliban surrendered Osama bin Laden were passed to the regime in Afghanistan by the Pakistani government, senior diplomatic sources revealed yesterday.
The Taliban refused to comply but the serious nature of what they were told raises the possibility that Bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue 10 days ago, was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.
The warning to the Taliban originated at a four-day meeting of senior Americans, Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July.
The conference, the third in a series dubbed "brainstorming on Afghanistan", was part of a classic diplomatic device known as "track two".
It was designed to offer a free and open-ended forum for governments to pass messages and sound out each other's thinking. Participants were experts with long diplomatic experience of the region who were no longer government officials but had close links with their governments.
"The Americans indicated to us that in case the Taliban does not behave and in case Pakistan also doesn't help us to influence the Taliban, then the United States would be left with no option but to take an overt action against Afghanistan," said Niaz Naik, a former foreign minister of Pakistan, who was at the meeting.
"I told the Pakistani government, who informed the Taliban via our foreign office and the Taliban ambassador here."
The three Americans at the Berlin meeting were Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, Karl "Rick" Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs, and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the state department until 1997.
According to Mr Naik, the Americans raised the issue of an attack on Afghanistan at one of the full sessions of the conference, convened by Francesc Vendrell, a Spanish diplomat who serves as the UN secretary general's special representative on Afghanistan.
In the break afterwards, Mr Naik told the Guardian yesterday, he asked Mr Simons why the attack should be more successful than Bill Clinton's missile strikes on Afghanistan in 1998, which caused 20 deaths but missed Bin Laden.
"He said this time they were very sure. They had all the intelligence and would not miss him this time. It would be aerial action, maybe helicopter gunships, and not only overt, but from very close proximity to Afghanistan. The Russians were listening to the conversation but not participating."
Asked whether he could be sure that the Americans were passing ideas from the Bush administration rather than their own views, Mr Naik said yesterday: "What the Americans indicated to us was perhaps based on official instructions. They were very senior people.
Even in 'track two' people are very careful about what they say and don't say."
In the room at the time were not only the Americans, Russians and Pakistanis but also a team from Iran headed by Saeed Rajai Khorassani, a former Iranian envoy to the UN. Three Pakistani generals, one still on active service, attended the conference. Giving further evidence of the fact that the Berlin meeting was designed to influence governments, the UN invited official representatives of both the Taliban government in Kabul and the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. Dr Abdullah Abdullah, the Northern Alliance's foreign minister, attended.
The Taliban declined to send a representative.
The Pakistani government took the US talk of possible strikes seriously enough to pass it on to the Taliban. Pakistan is one of only three governments to recognise the Taliban. Mr Coldren confirmed the broad outline of the American position at the Berlin meeting yesterday.
"I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action." The three former US diplomats "based our discussion on hearsay from US officials", he said. It was not an agenda item at the meeting "but was mentioned just in passing".
Nikolai Kozyrev, Moscow's former special envoy on Afghanistan and one of the Russians in Berlin, would not confirm the contents of the US conversations, but said: "Maybe they had some discussions in the corridor. I don't exclude such a possibility."
Mr Naik's recollection is that "we had the impression Russians were trying to tell the Americans that the threat of the use of force is sometimes more effective than force itself".
The Berlin conference was the third convened since November last year by Mr Vendrell. As a UN meeting, its official agenda was confined to trying to find a negotiated solution to the civil war in Afghanistan, ending terrorism and heroin trafficking, and discussing humanitarian aid. Mr Simons denied having said anything about detailed operations. "I've known Niaz Naik and considered him a friend for years. He's an honourable diplomat. I didn't say anything like that and didn't hear anyone else say anything like that. We were clear that feeling in Washington was strong, and that military action was one of the options down the road. But details, I don't know where they came from."
The US was reassessing its Afghan policy under the new Bush administration at the time of the July meeting, according to Mr Simons. "It was clear that the trend of US government policy was widening. People should worry, Taliban, Bin Laden ought to worry - but the drift of US policy was to get away from single issue, from concentrating on Bin Laden as under Clinton, and get broader."
Mr Inderfurth said: "There was no suggestion for military force to be used. What we discussed was the need for a comprehensive political settlement to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan, that has been going on for two decades, and has been doing so much damage."
The Foreign Office confirmed the significance of the Berlin discussions. "The meeting was a bringing together of Afghan factions and some interested states and we received reports from several participants, including the UN," it said.
Asked if he was surprised that the American participants were denying the details they mentioned in Berlin, Mr Naik said last night: "I'm a little surprised but maybe they feel they shouldn't have told us anything in advance now we have had these tragic events".
Russia's president Vladimir Putin said in an interview released yesterday that he had warned the Clinton administration about the dangers posed by Bin Laden. "Washington's reaction at the time really amazed me. They shrugged their shoulders and said matter-of-factly: 'We can't do anything because the Taliban does not want to turn him over'."
________________________________________________________________
September 2002
Revelations to the newspaper "La Vanguardia" of Barcelona
ON THE SUPPOSED ARAB SUICIDE PILOTS
The newspaper La Vanguardia of September 14th 2001 reveals, in an article signed by M. of Pozuelo and Santiago Tarín, some significant and important data about two of the suicidal pilots who the American authorities confirm were those who demolished the Twins Towers.
They are Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al Shehi. La Vanguardia says textually: " Flight instructors contacted by La Vanguardia, whose identity is preserved to guarantee its security, explained (...) that both were bad as pilots (...). Now they have also discovered that they rented light planes in another academy called Tirrus, where the instructor refused to sign the document that credited their skills because the skill of the students was lamentable (...) According to the American aeronautical sources, this irregular trajectory denotes that those who manned the Boeing were people with little experience in the handling of these engines, against some opinions that sustain the great know-how of the terrorists."
The 12th day a press information said that Mohamed Atta appeared drunk and with a lot of dollars, one day in Florida.
Neither the professional profile fits with the extraordinary skills of the two pilots that rushed against the two towers, nor the drunkenness fits with the life of some sincere Muslims and willed to give their life voluntarily. So what are these two Arabs doing here in this story, bad aviation apprentices and good revellers? Undoubtedly Atta and Marwan exist, or rather, they have existed, because just as it begins to be suspected that it is the true history of this attack, doubly sinister and monstrous, Atta and Marwan, as the other two pilots, they should no longer be in the world of the alive. They should have disappeared forever and well before September 11th. The four Arab " pilots " look like a prepared false clue during long time.
Are we facing a new Kennedy case?
Something of this says Gore Vidal, an American writer exiled voluntarily, in his paper "The meaning of Timothy McVeigh" published in Vanity Fair magazine, September 2001 (before September 11th) when he analyses thoroughly the Oklahoma attack.
They are still many questions but mainly one that everybody will be made immediately: suicides in the west? Indeed it would be difficult to find 19 suicides in the west but the science in the developed countries has advanced in a spectacular way in many lands.
And on purpose, are Ben Laden and Afghanistan the curtain of smoke to invade for surprise Iraq or they are the " hints " that will lead to this invasion?
COMUNISTES de CATALUNYA
_________________________________________________________________________
September 27, 2001
Israeli intelligence implicated in attacks on United States
DAMASCUS.- Syria's highest Islamic authority, Ahmad Kataro, the Grand Mufti of Damascus, has stated that the Israeli intelligence service Mossad is implicated in the September 11 attacks which destroyed New York's Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon building in Washington.
In a sermon he gave in Damascus on Saturday, September 22, Kataro referred to "black Tuesday" for the first time, rejecting any implication that Muslims were involved.
Kataro asked why Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon cancelled his planned visit to Washington two days before the attacks, and stressed that this was "a clear indication that Mossad knew about it."
He also referred to a report in an Oman daily revealing that close to 400 Jewish employees who worked in the destroyed Twin Towers did not turn up for work on the day of the tragedy.
(EFE)
________________________________________________________________
September 28, 2001
Business between Bush and the Bin Laden family?
U.S. President George W. Bush had business dealings with one of the brothers of Osama bin Laden, accused of organizing the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, according to the September 24 edition of The Daily Mail.
In 1978, Salem bin Laden and George W. Bush established the Arbust Energy Oil Company in Texas, according to the British daily.
Salem bin Laden, the oldest of 57 siblings, invested a large part of his inheritance from his father - a Saudi construction magnate - in several companies, among them Arbust. He died in Texas in 1983, when his private plane crashed.
In 1978 Salem bin Laden hired James Bath, a close friend of George W. Bush, as his representative in Houston, Texas. Later on, Bush invested $50,000 in Arbust, according to the daily.
That same year, Bath bought the Houston Gulf Airport on behalf of Salem bin Laden.
Bin Laden's relatives, who maintain close ties with the Saudi royal family, broke with Osama several years ago. "We don't have any relations with him," a member of the family living in London declared to AFP the day after the attacks. (AFP)
________________________________________________________________
3 October 2001
IMF Gave Up Ownership of the World Trade Center Two Weeks Ago.
The owners of the demolished World Trade Center in lower Manhattan acquired the buildings just two months ago under a 99-year lease allowing them to walk away from their investment in the event of "an act of terrorism". The owners, Silverstein Properties and Westfield America — a shopping mall specialist — purchased the buildings from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for Dollars 3.2bn in July and completed the financing just two weeks ago.
Neither of the buyers would comment on terms of the lease, but such a clause would be considered reasonable for the purchase of a building that had already seen a terrorist bombing and was considered a possible future target.
The lease document is understood to spell out certain conditions under which the lessees could walk away from their obligation to spend Dollars 200m in capital improvements and pay annual rental charges.
It is understood that the buildings are insured for more than Dollars 3bn, enough to cover rebuilding costs. However, an executive connected to the buyers said: "Ultimately, the decision will be made by politicians. It is a state and federal government decision about whether or not to rebuild on the site." Larry Silverstein, chairperson of Silverstein Properties, said yesterday that he was determined to rebuild on the site. "It would be the tragedy of tragedies not to rebuild on this part of New York," Mr. Silverstein was quoted as telling the Wall Street Journal.
"It would give the terrorists the victory they seek," he said, adding that he felt a moral obligation to rebuild on the site. Although there have been some suggestions that the site should be left vacant as a memorial park, its location at the heart of America's financial capital means it is probably far too valuable to lie undeveloped. Copyright: The Financial Times Limited
IN other words, the real owners, the bank, Chase Manhattan, CITIBANK, which is really the IMF... are off the hook. They got their payoff and are out of it. These people don't LOSE money, they have 99 years to make money. If they'd told us earlier, we'd have gotten OUR kid out of the building!
THEY KNEW it was coming. Ben Chambers, of 47th floor said last few weeks they've been making them have ESCAPE DRILLS! SOMEBODY UPSTAIRS KNEW!
In other words, nobody was left holding the bag, the lessors saved a few billion tearing the old ratty thing down for free and cheap. It was a firetrap and they knew it, shafts and stairwells carried heat. NOBODY CARED what terrorists were going to DO to this bldg. It hadn't been owned by IMF Citibank and CHASE MANHATTAN for several WEEKS!
Copyright 2001 (c) by J.S. Chiappalone
_______________________________________________________________
October 6th, 2001
Blair's evidence of bin Laden's guilt nothing but old news stories and leaps of logic.
by Stephen Gowans
One dark morning a few weeks ago I stepped into a cab. The cab driver, keenly following the news of the aftermath of September 11th, had been listening to radio reports all night. But he tore his attention away from the tragedy, and we began to chat idly.
As used car and donut signs whizzed by, the sonorous voice of the radio news announcer broke in on our conversation. That day's lead story was the Taliban's reply to Washington's ultimatum to hand over Osama bin Laden. We both pricked up our ears as the news announcer began.
"The Taliban has agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden," the announcer said, "but is asking Washington to show clear evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the September 11th attacks."
Eminently reasonable, I thought. If there's evidence pointing to bin Laden's complicity, he should be turned over, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There's plenty of evidence that he's been behind terrorist attacks elsewhere - in Kosovo, in Macedonia, in Bosnia, in Chechnya, and in Dagestan, in those instances, with the full knowledge of Washington.
For example, on May 4th, 1999, The Washington Post reported that in 1998 "State Department officials labeled the KLA a terrorist organization, saying it bankrolled its operations with proceeds from the heroin trade and from loans from known terrorists like bin Laden...The officials charged that the KLA used terrorist tactics to assault Serbian and ethnic Albanian civilians in a campaign to ruthlessly induce Western media sympathy and achieve independence."
On June 22, 2001 The Washington Times reported that a bin Laden representative "is the main financial supporter of the National Liberation Army," the NLA, which has terrorized Macedonia.
In November, 1998 The Sunday Times reported that bin Laden operated a terrorist network out of Albania.
On September 24, 1999 Agence France Presse reported that bin Laden was granted as Bosnian passport in 1993. The report pointed out that "Islamic fighters battled alongside Muslim soldiers in central Bosnia against Bosnian Serbs."
Of course, bin Laden's connection to terror attacks elsewhere doesn't mean he plotted the September 11th attacks, but if there's credible evidence he did, he should be held to account for those attacks, and for his involvement in other terror operations too, including those in the Balkans and central Asia. Indeed, bin Laden's support for terrorism in the Balkans should have been stopped long ago. Instead, Washington let bin Laden's terrorism go unchecked, even siding with him against the victims.
But as I soon discovered, my view wasn't shared - not by the cab driver, not by the news announcer, and certainly not by Washington.
"Evidence! What evidence do you need?" the driver sputtered in exasperation. "The evidence is staring you in the face."
Others, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz would later make the same claim. Bin Laden's culpability is so plain that asking for evidence is like asking for evidence that Michael Jackson has had re-constructive surgery.
But as the days rolled by, the initial acceptance that Washington didn't need to produce evidence started to fray at the edges, and some reporters and some current and could-be US allies began to ask questions. Are you going to show us the evidence that bin Laden's involved? "Sure," said Secretary of State Colin Powel. "Soon." But that promise, was, a few days later, followed by a retraction. Powel couldn't present the evidence, he explained. Security concerns. Disclosing the evidence would compromise intelligence sources.
Allies flocked to Powel's rescue. "We don't need evidence," they said. "We're convinced it was bin Laden." Of course, anyone who made the equally lame statement, "I'm convinced it's not Osama bin Laden, and I don't need any evidence," would be hooted down with well-deserved derision. So why not leaders like Canada's Jean Chretien, or NATO chief Lord Robertson?
Perhaps recognizing that Chretien's and Robertson's idiocy was doing more harm than good, Tony Blair, Britain's Prime Minister, and Washington's junior partner, declared that he had seen the evidence, and it was powerful and incontrovertible.
Yesterday, Blair disclosed the evidence to the public, laying out "in 70 damning points...the complete evidence (showing) the direct complicity of Osama bin Laden in the terrorist attacks of September 11th."
Someone should tell Blair that restating allegations is not the same as presenting evidence.
Blair's 70-point brief, if you take the time to sift through it, is nothing more than a rehash of old newspaper stories, innuendo, leaps of logic, and a restatement of the charges, with a significant part of bin Laden's history and connection to "international terrorism" left out.
Sixty of Blair's seventy-points have nothing whatever to do with the September 11th attacks, but offer an incomplete history of bin Laden , his movements, and Al-Qaeda. There's nothing on the Saudi millionaire's connections to terror campaigns in the Balkans or Chechnya or Dagestan.
The greatest detail is provided in describing the 1993 attacks on US military personnel in Somalia and the 1998 attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam , as if establishing bin Laden's connection to those attacks, proves he was behind the New York and Washington attacks.
And then Blair offers something significant: "Mr. bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the attack on US soldiers in Somalia....; for the attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998." But he hasn't claimed responsibility for the September 11th attacks. Quite the opposite - he denies responsibility. That's something Blair doesn't wonder about.
You could see a particularly dim prosecutor making the same kind of case against a bank robber, and being excoriated by the judge for wasting the Court's time. "Well, Butch here, robbed a bank in L.A. in 1993, and another in Phoenix in 1995. He's admitted to both robberies. And while he denies he robbed the bank in Sydney, Australia two weeks ago, it must be him because he robbed those two other banks here in the US. "
Is Blair's case any different?
After plowing through 60 points of background we finally get to the meat of the document, or what's supposed to be a thick, succulent slab of evidence, but turns out to be a disappointing piece of warmed over shoe leather.
Points 61 through 69 deal with the September 11th attacks. They're mostly a rehash of what anyone who reads a daily newspaper will already have read - 19 men are identified as the hijackers of which three are linked to al-Qaeda, etc.. Sensing perhaps that by this point anyone who's taken the time to read the brief will be throwing their hands up in exasperation, crying, "You haven't told me anything new," Blair introduces this bombshell: "There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the guilt of Mr. bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to release."
What? I've gone this far, plowing through a document that purports to present incontrovertible evidence, but has presented none, only to be told at point 62 of 70 that, "We have evidence, but we can't tell you what it is"?
But Blair's not done. There are seven more points to go. Having established that bin Laden is connected with previous terror attacks against US targets, in Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania, Blair says in point 65, "The attacks of September 11 are consistent with the scale and sophistication of the previous attacks."
Huh? Has he been briefed on what happened that terrible day?
The attacks of September 11th were on a much bigger scale and involved infinitely more sophistication and coordination and cunning and daring than car bombings. Comparing previous attacks to the September 11th attacks is like comparing the sniffles to viral pneumonia.
And isn't there an astonishing leap of logic here? Evidence of Bin Laden being involved in previous attacks, does not constitute evidence that he was involved in the September 11th attacks, especially given the previous attacks were nothing like the September 11th attacks. Blair's simply saying, "Bin Laden's a bad guy. Therefore, he must be involved. He's done this kind of thing before," not much different from the dim prosecutor who points to an accused's previous crimes as evidence of culpability for some current crime. I don't know about you, but in my books - and in a court of law -- that hardly counts as overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence.
Blair's argument about September 11th having the marks of a bin Laden operation is made in point 64: "The modus operandi of September 11th was entirely consistent with previous attacks."
No it wasn't. For one, Blair says bin Laden claimed responsibility for the Somalia, Tanzania and Kenya attacks. But the Saudi millionaire has denied responsibility for the New York and Washington attacks. That hardly seems consistent. And the previous attacks were attacks on American targets in foreign countries. This was an attack on US soil. That, too, is inconsistent. Moreover, most attacks bin Laden has some connection to, have been directed at Serbs, Macedonians and Russians, not Americans, a point Blair is silent on.
What's more, no one would deny that the September 11th attacks were unique. Nothing like the operation has ever been done before. So how can it be said to be like previous bin Laden operations? This wasn't like any operation anywhere.
Wrapping up, Blair declares in point 69 that "no other organization has the motivation and the capability to carry out attacks like those of September 11," but what evidence does he offer? None, which, it seems, is only to be expected from Blair. I can think of plenty of organizations that have the resources to pull something off like September 11th , none of them a rag-tag band of people living in tents in an enormously poor and backward country, that has never mounted an operation of this scale and sophistication before.
So, weeks after I first heard the news report that the Taliban had demanded evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the September 11th attacks, we're no further ahead. Nothing has changed, except that Washington and its junior partner in London are a little farther along in their plans to launch a major military operation, directed ostensibly at a man and organization they can't, or won't, provide evidence of being involved in the September 11th attacks. Meanwhile, Washington, and many of its allies, have taken a good many steps toward crafting legislation to limit civil liberties, and towards shoveling billions more into the pockets of defense contractors. In Bush's case, there's been ground made on the tax cut front, with promises to cut taxes even more generously for the wealthy, as a means of "stimulating an economy weakened by the attacks," but it may be more accurate to say he's made a good start in making over the US to benefit the wealthy in a way he would never had been able to do in the absence of September 11th. And significantly, with the establishment of a substantial military presence in central Asia underway, Washington will soon crack the nut of securing access to the trillions of dollars of oil wealth locked beneath the Caspian Sea.
A lot has been accomplished in a few short weeks by those whose interests lie firmly in oil wealth, lower taxes, defense spending, and muzzling what was becoming a bothersome anti-globalization movement. But those weeks have come and gone, and despite promises that the proof was forthcoming, despite Paul Wolfowitz's claim that the evidence was plain to see, despite Blair's 70-point restatement of the allegations, we still have no more of a sound basis to believe that bin Laden was behind the attacks than we did that dark morning I stepped into the taxi cab to hear the Taliban agree to hand over bin Laden if Washington could present proof.
Proof? Who needs proof? Washington says, "Trust us. Trust Tony Blair. Have we ever lied?"
Mr. Steve Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in Ottawa, Canada.
Source:
by courtesy & © 2001 Steve Gowans <mailto:editor@mediamonitors.net>
________________________________________________________________
October 2001
Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170583.html
Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Version By Brian McWilliams, Newsbytes NEW YORK, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 27 Sep 2001, 11:48 AM CST Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.
Citing a pending investigation by law enforcement, the company declined to reveal the exact contents of the message or to identify the sender.
But Alex Diamandis, vice president of sales and marketing, confirmed that workers in Odigo's research and development and international sales office in Israel received a warning from another Odigo user approximately two hours prior to the first attack.
Diamandis said the sender of the instant message was not personally known to the Odigo employees. Even though the company usually protects the privacy of users, the employees recorded the Internet protocol address of the message's sender to facilitate his or her identification.
Soon after the terrorist attacks on New York, the Odigo employees notified their management, who contacted Israeli security services.
In turn, the FBI was informed of the instant message warning. FBI officials were not immediately available for comment today.
The Odigo service includes a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain interests or demographics.
Diamandis said it was possible that the attack warning was broadcast ,to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message.
In addition to operating its own messaging service network, Odigo has licensed its technology to over 100 service providers, portals, wireless carriers, and corporations, according to the company.
Odigo is online at http://www.odigo.com .
Reported by Newsbytes, http://www.newsbytes.com .
11:48 CST Reposted 11:53 CST (20010927/WIRES TOP, ONLINE, PC,
BUSINESS/WTCPOST/PHOTO)
_________________________________________________________________
Sent: 21 October 2001 10:27
Subject: What proof?
Missing: crucial facts from the official charge sheet against Bin Laden
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=98195
What the Government's dossier against bin Laden doesn't say and can't say: One thing is missing from the document 'proving' Bin Laden's guilt - the proof
By Chris Blackhurst
07 October 2001
It was too good to be true. We were told we would be getting evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt. Instead, close analysis of the 21-page document put out by the Government on Thursday reveals a report of conjecture, supposition and unsubstantiated assertions of fact. It uses every trick in the Whitehall drafter's arsenal to make the reader believe they are reading something they are not: a damning indictment of Mr bin Laden for the events of 11 September.
No wonder Tony Blair and his officials are delighted with the reaction to publication of the dossier. One Whitehall source told the Independent on Sunday they were "chuffed with two newspapers for hailing it as 'proof' of bin Laden's involvement and delighted it got such a good reaction overall". Ministers believe the document has sealed the propaganda war, convincing the country of the need to move against Mr bin Laden and al-Qa'ida and to accept limited British and civilian casualties. To their relief they are not being subjected to rigorous questioning on the report, either from their own supporters, the Opposition, or much of the media. Officials are also pleased: the document successfully papers over the cracks in their own intelligence operations.
The report was put together by a committee which included senior members of MI5 and MI6, working round the clock, with drafts going backwards and forwards to Washington. Within Whitehall, the dossier was seen as vital to gaining the approval of a naturally cautious and sceptical British public.
As a paper produced by mandarins anxious to brook no argument it is a classic of its kind, straight from the script of Yes Minister: short on checkable detail; long on bold assertion; highly selective with the choice of facts.
Officials when they prepare such reports operate to a set of principles. They know that unlike the US, and thanks to their efforts in suppressing freedom of information down the years, Britain is a secret society. We are not used to having anything presented to us about intelligence matters and threats to national security. That, plus the British characteristic of not defying authority, especially in times of crisis, means that if the Government says loudly enough that something is "evidence", even if it is not, we will accept it as such.
That is why the very first sentence in the paper, in the introduction, states: "The clear conclusions reached by the government are: Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001." This is the introduction, not the conclusion or an executive summary. Introductions, as the authors knew too well, normally set up a document, relating the background as to why the book or, in this instance, a government document, has been written. Here, that convention was rejected: from the word go, the Government wanted to ensure the point of the document was conveyed.
The document carries a health warning that intelligence material has been withheld to protect the safety of sources. But, lawyers point out, this is not good enough. Assuming one aim of the military build-up is to try to capture Mr bin Laden and put him on trial, that so-far-unseen evidence would have to be displayed - because on the basis of what has been released there is no chance of his being prosecuted, let alone convicted. "The Prime Minister told Parliament that this evidence was of an even more direct nature indicating guilt," said Richard Gordon QC. "The document makes it clear that the additional evidence is 'too sensitive to release'. That may be so, but in any criminal prosecution against bin Laden the necessary evidence would have to be adduced for the case to be proved."
For page after page, the paper spews out facts about Mr bin Laden. In 1996, he issued a declaration of jihad, or holy war. In February 1998 he issued and signed a fatwa which included a decree to all Muslims that "the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim to be carried out..." In the same year he also said that acquiring chemical or nuclear weapons for the defence of Muslims was a "religious duty". It might look like evidence of something, but it is not proof he organised the 11 September attacks. "All this shows, in the language of the lawyers, propensity, but it proves little," said Mr Gordon.
More pertinent to 11 September were two TV interviews he gave, in 1997 and 1998, in which he referred to the terrorists who carried out the earlier attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993 as "role models". In December 1999, a terrorist cell linked to al-Qa'ida was discovered trying to carry out attacks in the US. Other attacks on US targets by al-Qa'ida or terrorists trained at bin Laden camps were made in January and October 2000.
Again, said Mr Gordon, it is not enough. "This material shows that bin Laden may well have been responsible for the 11 September massacre but it does not, of itself, prove that he was." The document goes into great detail about the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. But there is not one single fact presented that was not already known. While the operation was similar to 11 September - well planned, two attacks on the same day, suicide attackers indiscriminate killing of civilians, including Muslims - it does not prove anything.
Officials deny that the minute description of the previous bombings was designed to cover up cracks in their own intelligence about 11 September.
Nevertheless, it is noticeable that in a 21-page document the overwhelming bulk of it is devoted to rehashing old information. It is not until page 18 and paragraph 61 that the reader is told something new about 11 September.
This is that three of the 19 hijackers have been "positively identified as associates of Al Qaida" and that one of them "has been identified as playing key roles in both the East African embassy attacks and the USS Cole attack".
The word "associates" suggests the authorities lack intelligence on al-Qa'ida: they think they know who may be involved but they are not sure, and they are not certain where they come in the pecking order - hence the catch-all, "associates". The three are understood to be: Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, both filmed secretly in Kuala Lumpur meeting other al-Qa'ida members involved in the USS Cole bombing in Aden; and Mohamed Atta. Suspected of being the ringleader, Atta is believed to have been a member of Islamic Jihad, a major grouping within al-Qa'ida, and the authorities are convinced he received training at a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan. The hijacker who played a key role in the embassy, USS Cole and 11 September attacks, is thought to refer to Almihdhar. If there is a hijacker linking all three, that is a crucial piece of evidence since there is no doubt al-Qa'ida committed the earlier bombings.
The next paragraph, 62, promises much and delivers little. Prefaced with another rider about names remaining anonymous to protect sources, it begins by saying how, prior to 11 September, Mr bin Laden "mounted a concerted propaganda campaign ... justifying attacks on Jewish and American targets".
It was well known in the Middle East that, earlier this year, a bin Laden recruitment video was in circulation, exhorting Muslims to lay down their lives for the jihad. The video makes no mention of any coming big assault nor does it refer to 11 September or possible targets in the US.
Last week it emerged that Mr bin Laden called his adoptive mother in Syria on 10 September to tell her there would be "big news", subsequent to which he might be out of touch for some time. It is hard to believe that someone as cautious as him would risk such a call. However, this is understood to be what is being referred to when the document says, in paragraph 62: "We have learned, subsequent to 11 September, that bin Laden himself asserted shortly before 11 September that he was preparing a major attack on America." The document goes on, saying that in August and early September, close bin Laden associates were warned to return to Afghanistan by 10 September.
This is new, and odd. Since the attacks, known al-Qa'ida associates have been picked up or they are being watched. If there was advice to go to Afghanistan presumably they ignored it or did not receive it. The names of the "close associates" are not specified, neither is any more detail made available - which is a mystery. It is hard to see why giving a bit more detail would compromise anybody or a foreign intelligence service that may be monitoring their calls.
Again, this tantalising paragraph - by far the most intriguing in the document - says that just before the attacks "some known associates of bin Laden were naming the date for action as on or around 11 September". What associates? How? When? Again, no detail is supplied.
Then, the paragraph continues, "one of bin Laden's closest and most senior associates was responsible for the detailed planning of the attacks". This is thought to be a reference to either Mohamed Atef, al-Qa'ida's operations chief, or Ayman al Zawahiri, Mr bin Laden's deputy. Another senior al-Qa'ida member being mentioned by those close to the investigation is Abu Zubeidah.
After all this, the most vital paragraph in the paper ends with this curious sentence: "There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the guilt of bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to release."
What this document is not is a detailed exposition of the investigation to date. To be fair, that is still ongoing, but providing that amount of information would distract from the paper's main purpose, to blame Mr bin Laden. This is summarised in the final narrative paragraph, 69: "No other organisation has both the motivation and the capability to carry out attacks like those of the 11 September - only the Al Qaida network under Osama bin Laden." This smacks of exasperation. To ram that point home, paragraph 70, "conclusion", repeats the message of the introduction. This, in the end, is what the paper is for, a Government plea for trust: it was Mr bin Laden. To which the response must be: we believe you - but prove it.
___________________________________________________________________
WHO TERRORIZES WHOM?
October 18
By Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
One of the marks of exceptional hegemonic power is the ability to define words and get issues framed in accord with your own political agenda. This is notorious at this moment in history as regards "terrorism" and "antiterrorism."
Since the September 11 attacks, two truths have been indisputable and universally reported. One is that the hijacker bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon were atrocities of a monumental and spectacular scale (and media coverage of that day's events alone may have generated more words and graphic images than any other single event in recent history). A second truth is that the bombings were willful acts of terrorism, accepting the basic and widely agreed-upon definition of terrorism as "the use of force or the threat of force against civilian populations to achieve political objectives." And let us also recognize that "sponsorship of terrorism" means organizing, and/or underwriting and providing a "safe harbor" to state or nonstate agents who terrorize.
But there is a third indisputable truth, although much less understood, let alone universally reported: namely, that from the 1950s the United States itself has been heavily engaged in terrorism, and has sponsored, underwritten, and protected other terrorist states and individual terrorists. In fact, as the greatest and now sole superpower, the United States has also been the world's greatest terrorist and sponsor of terror. Right now this country is supporting a genocidal terrorist operation against Iraq via "sanctions of mass destruction" and regular bombing attacks to achieve its political objectives; it is underwriting the army and paramilitary forces in Colombia, who openly terrorize the civilian population; and it continues to give virtually unconditional support to an Israeli state that has been using force to achieve its political objectives for decades. The United States has terrorized or sponsored terror in Nicaragua, Brazil, Uruguay, Cuba, Guatemala, Indonesia/East Timor, Zaire, Angola, South Africa, and elsewhere. And it stands alone in both using and brandishing the threat to use nuclear weapons. It has for many years provided a safe harbor to the Cuban refugee terror network, and it has done the same for a whole string of terrorists in flight from, among other places, El Salvador, Haiti, Vietnam, and even Nazi Germany (see Christopher Simpson's Blowback).
Even in its response to the September 11 terrorist events the United States resorted instantly to its own terrorism. Ignoring legal niceties-- despite its supposed devotion to the "rule of law"- -the United States immediately began to threaten to "take out" states harboring terrorists, threatened the Afghans with bombing--itself an act of terrorism--and by such threats succeeded in blocking the flow of food supplies to a starving population, which is yet another act of terrorism, and a major one. (A spokesman for Oxfam International stationed in Islamabad recently stated that "Prior to this crisis, the World Food Program, with the help of Oxfam and other groups, was feeding 3.7 million [Afghan] people. But with the onset of the bombing campaign, this has stopped as the aid workers have been force to withdraw. The airdrops will--at their very best--feed 130,000 people," or only 3.5 percent of those facing winter and starvation).
On October 7 the United States then began to bomb this impoverished country--not just a further act of terrorism, but the crime of aggression.
All serious observers recognize that the U.S. actions against Afghanistan have and will cause many, many more deaths than the 6,000 killed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But U.S. power and self-righteousness, broadcast and justified to the whole world by a subservient media machine, assure that what the United States does will neither be called terrorism, nor aggression, nor elicit indignation remotely comparable to that expressed over the events of September 11--however well its actions fit the definitions. The same bias extends to other Western countries, diminishing in scope and intensity from Britain to the others, and weakening further in the Third World. In the Middle East, for most of the population the bias disappears and U.S. terrorism is called by its right name, although the U.S.-dependent governments toe their master's line, if nervously. In these more remote areas the press speaks a different language, calling the United States a "rogue state par excellence repeatedly defying international rulings whether by the World Court or by U.N. resolutions when they have not suited its interests" and a "bandit sheriff" (The Hindu, India), and speaking of this as an "age of Euro-American tyranny" with tyrants who are merely "civilized andadvanced terrorists" (Ausaf, Pakistan).
But another sad fact is that in this country, and Britain as well, even the Left has trouble escaping the hegemonic definitions and frames. Leftists here regularly discuss the terrorism issue starting from the premise that the United States is against terrorism and that the issue is how the U.S. government can best deal with the problem. They are worried that the United States will go about solving the problem too aggressively, will seek vengeance, not justice. So they propose lawful routes, such as resort to the United Nations and International Court of Justice; and they urge seeking cooperation from the Arab states to crush terrorists within their own states. They discuss how bin Laden money routes can be cut off. Some of them even propose that the United States and its allies intervene not to bomb, but to build a new society in Afghanistan, engage in "nation-building", as the popular phrase puts it, in the spirit of the Kosovo "new humanitarian" intervention.
While some of these proposals are meritorious, we haven't seen any that discuss how a "coalition of the willing" might be formed to bring the United States under control, to force it to stop using and threatening violence, to compel it and its British ally to cease terrorizing Iraq, and to make it stop supporting terrorist states like Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia, and Israel. Or to make U.S. funding of its terrorist operations more difficult! The hegemon defines the main part of the agenda--who terrorizes--and the debate is over how he and his allies should deal with those he identifies as terrorist.
A good illustration of this Left accommodationism is displayed in the "New Agenda to Combat Terrorism," recently issued by the Institute for Policy Studies and Interhemispheric Resource Center in their Foreign Policy in Focus series. Nowhere in this document is it suggested that the United States is itself a terrorist state, sponsor of terrorism, or safe harbor of terrorists, although it is acknowledged that this country has supported "repressive regimes." "Repressive" is softer and less invidious than "terrorist." The report refers to the "destructive and counterproductive economic sanctions on Iraq," but doesn't suggest that this constitutes terrorism. In fact, "destructive" sounds like buildings knocked down and fails to capture the fact of a million or more human casualties. The recent publicity given the U.S.'s deliberate destruction of the Iraqi water supply also suggests something more than "destructive and counterproductive" is needed to properly describe U.S. policy toward that country (Thomas Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply," The Progressive, September 2001). Nowhere does the IPS/IRC document mention Colombia, Turkey or Indonesia, where the United States is currently supporting "repressive regimes."
This practice of leaning over backwards to downplay the U.S. terrorist role merges into serious misreadings of ongoing events: for example, the New Agenda claims that one effect of September 11 was that "defense policy was redefined as defending America and Americans rather than as force projection." This takes as gospel official propaganda claims, when in fact September 11 has given the proponents of force projection just the excuse they need to project force, which they are doing under the guise of antiterrorism. As John Pilger notes, "The ultimate goal is not the capture of a fanatic, which would be no more than a media circus, but the acceleration of western imperial power" (New Statesman, Oct. 15, 2001). And discussing the Bush administration's non-negotiable demands on the Taliban, Delhi University professor Nirmalangshu Mukherji points out that "it is hard to believe that thousands are going to be killed and maimed, entire nations devastated, regional conflicts allowed to take ugly turns, the rest of the world held in fear--all because the dead body of a single, essentially unworthy person is given such high value." On the contrary, she proposes, as does Pilger, that "in the name of fighting global terrorism, the US is basically interested in using the opportunity to establish [a] permanent military presence in the area" that is notable for its geo-political importance ("Offers of Peace," Oct. 16, 2001).
Calling for "reorienting U.S. policy along the lines of respecting human rights," the New Agenda report states that "the unnecessary projection of U.S. military abroad, represented by the archipeligo of overseas military bases, often serves as a physical reminder of U.S. political and military support for repressive regimes." This claim that such bases are "unnecessary" completely ignores their ongoing important role in facilitating the global expansion of U.S. business, and, amazingly, ignores the fact that the United States is right now in the process of building new ones in "repressive" states like Uzbekistan, with 7,000 political prisoners and in the midst of a low- intensity war against Islamic insurgents ("U.S. Indicates New Military Partnership With Uzbekistan," Wall Street Journal, Oct. 15, 2001). Such bases are only "unnecessary" to analysts who are unable or unwilling to confront the reality of a powerful imperialism in fine working order and in a new phase of expansion. These analysts seem to believe that the United States can easily, perhaps with Left advice, be dissuaded from being an imperialist power!
The reasons for this Left accommodation to what we must call the Superterrorist's antiterrorist agenda are mainly twofold. One is the power of hegemonic ideas, so that even leftists are swept along with the general understanding that the United States is fighting terrorism and is only a victim of terrorism. Some swallow the New Imperialist premise that the United States is the proper vehicle for reconstructing the world, which it should do in a gentler and kinder fashion. Thus Richard Falk takes this for granted in declaring the U.S. attack on Afghanistan "the first truly just war since World War
II" (The Nation, Oct. 29, 2001), although claiming that its justice "is in danger of being negated by the injustice of improper means and excessive ends." Though writing in the liberal Nation magazine, it never occurs to Falk that the rightwing Republican regime of Bush and Cheney, so close to the oil industry and military-industrial complex, might have an agenda incompatible with a just war. Apart from this, as the attack was itself a violation of international law, and was from its start killing civilians by bombs directly and via its important contribution to the already endemic mass starvation, Falk makes the war "just" despite the fact that its justice was already negated at the time he made his claim. (By Falk's logic, an Iraqi attack on the United States would also be a highly just war, though its justice might be endangered by dubious means and excessive ends.) This is imperialist apologetics carried to the limit.
The other reason for leftist accommodation is pragmatic. Thanks to the effectiveness of the U.S. propaganda system, U.S. citizens by and large are caught within the epistemic bind of NOT KNOWING THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW. Thus, leftists understand that people will have difficulty understanding what they are talking about if they start their discussions of controlling terrorism with an agenda on how to control Superterrorist's terrorism. If one wants to be listened to quickly and possibly influence the course of policy right now--and be far safer personally and professionally--it is better to take the conventional view of terrorism as a premise and discuss what the United States should do about it. Maybe this way one can help curb extremist responses.
On the other hand, by taking it as the starting premise that the United States is only a victim of terrorism, one loses the opportunity to educate people to a fundamental truth about terrorism and even implicitly denies that truth in order to be practical. We find that we can't do that. After one of us (Herman) authored books entitled The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (with Noam Chomsky) and The Real Terror Network, the latter featuring the gigantic U.S.-sponsored terror network that emerged in the years after 1950, and after following U.S. policy for years thereafter in which terrorism has been very prominent, he (and we) consider the notion of the United States as an antiterrorist state a sick joke.
We believe it is of the utmost importance to contest the hegemonic agenda that makes the U.S. and its allies only the victims of terror, not terrorists and sponsors of terror. This is a matter of establishing basic truth, but also providing the long- run basis for systemic change that will help solve the problem of "terrorism," however defined. Others see things differently, and very good articles have been written in the pragmatic mode. But we want to call attention to the fact that there is a cost to using that mode, and those that work in it should do this understanding what they are taking for granted and its costs. Given the current trajectory of world events, we believe that we need a greater focus on ALL the terrorists and sponsors of terror, and less pragmatism.
____________________________________________________________________
October 23, 2001. The Guardian of London <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>
America's Pipe Dream
A Pro-Western Regime in Kabul Should Give the US an Afghan Route for Caspian Oil
by George Monbiot
"Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here," Woodrow Wilson asked a year after the first world war ended, "that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?" In 1919, as US citizens watched a shredded Europe scraping up its own remains, the answer may well have been no. But the lessons of war never last for long.
The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism, but it may also be a late colonial adventure. British ministers have warned MPs that opposing the war is the moral equivalent of appeasing Hitler, but in some respects our moral choices are closer to those of 1956 than those of 1938. Afghanistan is as indispensable to the regional control and transport of oil in central Asia as Egypt was in the Middle East.
Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbors, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.
Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of "diversifying energy supply" and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe.
As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, in 1995 the US oil company Unocal started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea. The company's scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that "oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan". UNOCAL invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying these barbarians 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered.
For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." US policy began to change only when feminists and greens started campaigning against both UNOCAL's plans and the government's covert backing for Kabul.
Even so, as a transcript of a congress hearing now circulating among war resisters shows, UNOCAL failed to get the message. In February 1998, John Maresca, its head of international relations, told representatives that the growth in demand for energy in Asia and sanctions against Iran determined that Afghanistan remained "the only other possible route" for Caspian oil. The company, once the Afghan government was recognized by foreign diplomats and banks, still hoped to build a 1,000-mile pipeline, which would carry a million barrels a day. Only in December 1998, four months after the embassy bombings in east Africa, did UNOCAL drop its plans.
But Afghanistan's strategic importance has not changed. In September, a few days before the attack on New York, the US energy information administration reported that "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan". Given that the US government is dominated by former oil industry executives, we would be foolish to suppose that such plans no longer figure in its strategic thinking. As the researcher Keith Fisher has pointed out, the possible economic outcomes of the war in Afghanistan mirror the possible economic outcomes of the war in the Balkans, where the development of "Corridor 8", an economic zone built around a pipeline carrying oil and gas from the Caspian to Europe, is a critical allied concern.
American foreign policy is governed by the doctrine of "full-spectrum dominance", which means that the US should control military, economic and political development worldwide. China has responded by seeking to expand its interests in central Asia. The defense white paper Beijing published last year argued that "China's fundamental interests lie in ... the establishment and maintenance of a new regional security order". In June, China and Russia pulled four central Asian republics into a "Shanghai cooperation organization". Its purpose, according to Jiang Zemin, is to "foster world multi-polarization", by which he means contesting US full-spectrum dominance.
If the US succeeds in overthrowing the Taliban and replacing them with a stable and grateful pro-western government and if the US then binds the economies of central Asia to that of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, but also the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, as ever, is the key to the western domination of Asia.
We have argued on these pages about whether terrorism is likely to be deterred or encouraged by the invasion of Afghanistan, or whether the plight of the starving there will be relieved or exacerbated by attempts to destroy the Taliban. But neither of these considerations describes the full scope and purpose of this war. As John Flynn wrote in 1944: "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilize savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells." I believe that the US government is genuine in its attempt to stamp out terrorism by military force in Afghanistan, however misguided that may be. But we would be naïve to believe that this is all it is doing.
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001
__________________________________________________________________
Octoner 2001
CIA AND US GOV KNEW BEFOREHAND !
CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA’s HIGHEST RANKS
From: Thomas Mountain <brotom@lava.net>
Subject: [MLNews!*] 911 stock market insider trades lead to CIA by Mike Ruppert
SUPPRESED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA’s HIGHEST RANKS CIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR "BUZZY" KRONGARD MANAGED FIRM THATHANDLED "PUT" OPTIONS ON UAL
by Michael C. Ruppert
[© COPYRIGHT, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications,
www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. ? May be reprinted or distributed for non-profit purposes only.]
FTW, October 9, 2001 ? Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That evidence also demonstrates that, in the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations". In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was, acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.
THE SCOPE OF KNOWN INSIDER TRADING
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades ? in real time ? as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades. "Selling Short" is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months. “Put Options", purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 ? regardless of where the market then stands. A call option is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled “Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
[The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders", their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "“double whammy" for them.]
On September 29, 2001 ? in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media ? the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
“The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors ? whose identities and nationalities have not been made public ? had advance knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t`dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
"October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp".
"The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options".
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
CIA, The Banks and the Brokers
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let’s look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA’s history.
Clark Clifford ? The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles ? These two brothers "designed" the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey ? Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush ? President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, and which shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.
A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard ? The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust. John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation’s second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering drug money. This includes Citigroup’s 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin ? This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank’s board. Maurice "Hank" Greenburg ? The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg’s and AIG’s long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG’s stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read that story, please go to http://www.copvcia.com/stories/part_2.html.
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.
______________________________________________________________
The Guardian (London), November 1, 2001
CIA agent said to have met Bin Laden in July: Intelligence French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital
by Anthony Sampson
Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.
The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there, he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA. The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington not long afterwards.
Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present; and that Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban and Bin Laden. Soon after wards Turki resigned, and more recently he has publicly attacked him in an open letter: "You are a rotten seed, like the son of Noah".
The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there. Washington also denied the story last night.
Private planes owned by rich princes in the Gulf fly frequently between Quetta and the Emirates, often on luxurious "hunting trips" in territories sympathetic to Bin Laden. Other sources confirm that these hunting trips have provided opportunities for Saudi contacts with the Taliban and terrorists, since they first began in 1994.
Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years.
According to Le Figaro, last year he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan.
Whether the allegations about the Dubai meeting are confirmed or not, the wider leaks from the French secret service throw a worrying light on the rivalries and lack of coordination between intelligence agencies, both within the US and between western allies.
Le Figaro reports that in August French agents had a tense meeting with their American counterparts in the American embassy who questioned them about Algerian suspects; the French asked "What are you afraid about in the next days?"; the Americans refused to answer. This is consistent with the familiar complaint of French intelligence that collaboration with the Americans has been essentially one-way.
The French secret service nevertheless continued to be very helpful to Washington. On September 7, they gave the Americans precise details of forthcoming terrorist attacks on American interests round the world and in the US.
And since September 11, they have effectively tracked down the networks of French Algerian terrorists and conspirators who were plotting to destroy the American embassy in Paris.
______________________________________________________________
November 2001
BUSH OIL INTERESTS THWARTED INVESTIGATION OF BIN LADEN NETWORK
London, November 7 (RHC)-- The British Broadcasting Corporation has affirmed that FBI agents in the United States probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect Osama Bin Laden before September 11th were told to back off soon after George W. Bush became president due to Bush family oil interests. The BBC's "Newsnight" current affairs program on Tuesday said that Bush at one point had a number of connection with Saudi Arabia's prominent Bin Laden family.
It added that there was suspicion that Washington's strategic interest in Saudi Arabia, which has the world's biggest oil reserves, blunted inquiries into individuals with suspected terrorist connections -- so long as the United States was safe. But "Newsnight" added that Bush made his first million dollars 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by the chief U.S. representative of Salem Bin Laden, Osama's brother.
The BBC news program reported that it had seen secret documents from an FBI probe into the September 11 terror attacks that showed that at least two other U.S.-based members of the Bin Laden family are suspected to have links with a possible terrorist organization. Bush, according to the BBC report, also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little-known private company which in just a few years since its founding has become one of the U.S.'s biggest defense contractors, and his father, George Bush Sr., is also a paid advisor. The connection became embarrassing when it was revealed that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11th, according to the report.
_______________________________________________________________
OSAMA BIN LADEN´S "CONFESSION" NOV. 11TH, 2001.
Washinton Post. 15 November 2001. Tape Proves Bin Laden Is Guilty, Britain Says.
LONDON -- In a videotape made last month, Osama bin Laden declared that this al Qaeda network "instigated" the Sept. 11 attacks, the British government said today. It quoted bin Laden as saying that "if avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists."
Bin Laden made the video on Oct. 20 for distribution among al Qaeda members, Prime Minister Tony Blair said today in an address to members of Parliament.
On the tape, according to a British government document, an interviewer asked bin Laden about the attacks on New York and Washington, and the Saudi exile replied: "It is what we instigated, for a while, in self-defense. And it was revenge for our people killed in Palestine and Iraq."
"Bush and Blair . . . don't understand any language but the language of force," bin Laden said, according to Blair. "Every time they kill us, we will kill them, so the balance of terror can be achieved."
[N.B.] British officials did not release a full transcript of the video, saying they do not have a copy of the video [!] but received information about it from intelligence sources.
Blair cited the video as he set out his case against bin Laden. Expanding on evidence that he issued Oct. 4, Blair said today that "there is no doubt whatever of the guilt of bin Laden and his associates."
Since Sept. 11, the U.S. government also has blamed bin Laden for the attacks but has not released evidence showing that he directly planned or ordered them.
In various videotaped statements that have been broadcast internationally, bin Laden has not claimed direct responsibility.
While bin Laden's involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks has not been widely questioned in the United States, there is an undercurrent of opinion among many Muslims that the multimillionaire may have been set up as a scapegoat by Washington and London.
In an opinion poll published today by the British company ICM, 500 Muslims across Britain were asked whether they believed that bin Laden was guilty of organizing the attacks. Twenty-one percent said yes, while 67 percent said no.
In an attempt to counter such skepticism, Blair has functioned as the chief prosecutor for the U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition, often releasing more details than have U.S. officials. Today's statement was put out not only in English, but also in Arabic and Urdu, the main language of Pakistan.
In his Oct. 4 statement, Blair said Western governments have proof that bin Laden indicated shortly before Sept. 11 that he was preparing "a major attack on America," that he ordered associates around the world to return to Afghanistan by Sept. 10, and that one of his top lieutenants admitted the bin Laden organization was responsible for the suicide attacks.
British officials have given few details on how such information was obtained, generally attributing it to intelligence sources.
London's Sunday Telegraph newspaper cited the new bin Laden video in this week's edition, reporting that in the video bin Laden offered a justification for the attack on the World Trade Center.
__________________________________________________________
November 24 2001
What really happened
info@unitedpeoples.net
Subject: What really happened
IF I WERE THE GOVERNMENT....
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ifiwere.html
It's been three years since Congress discussed removing the government of Afghanistan to make way for an oil pipeline, five months since the US Government told India there would be an invasion of Afghanistan in October, four months since BBC heard about the planned invasion of Afghanistan, nine months since Jane's Defense got word of the planned invasion of Afghanistan, and of course, only two months since the attacks on the World Trade Towers that got the American people angered into support of the war that everybody on the planet BUT Americans had been told was on the way.
During these last two months, the same American media that waved non-stop Gary Condit in front of our faces to keep us from finding out that plans for a war were being announced to other governments is now trying to keep the level of fear in the American public so high that they cannot think. The media has been pounding us all non-stop with Osama (you know, the CIA's main asset in Afghanistan) in a fashion eerily similar to the mythical dictatorship's use of Emmanual Goldstein and the "Two Minute Hate" in George Orwell's "1984". The media's "scare-orrism" has continued with the endless dire warnings regarding the Anthrax being sent in letters, which in retrospect has to be the weakest form of Anthrax, having killed far fewer people in the entire nation in the last two months than are gunned down in Washington DC in any given week.
But the problem with using fear to keep people from thinking is that sooner or later fear tires itself out. People habituate to it. They get used to it. And they start thinking again.
And, as people stop fearing and start to think, they start to notice those
things which the government would prefer they don't. Things like the convenient timing of the attacks on the World Trade Towers and the perfect fit into the timetable of the war announced to other nations earlier in the year.
People are remembering that Osama bin Laden is a creation of the CIA, the same CIA once headed by the President's father (who also got us into a pointless war in the oil-rich regions of the middle east), the same CIA that imports drugs and sells them to our children, the same CIA now advocating the use of torture. People are remembering that the initial Anthrax "attack" on the US Congress
occurred just as the draconian USA PATRIOT bill was about to be voted on. People have noticed that the US Congress, out of their own fear, voted to pass that bill without reading it at all! (The second congressional Anthrax attack was sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) "coincidentally" right after he announced hearings on the military tribunals directive.) People are remembering that the first suspects to be arrested after the WTC attacks were not Arabs, but Israelis, and that Israelis (in one case a known Mossad agent) were also arrested inside the Mexican Congress carrying guns. Yet more suspected Mossad agents were arrested with plans for US Nuclear power plants inside the US, but were strangely let go! People are remembering that the Mossad has a past history of staging fake terror attacks to blame on a third party, such as the successful planting of fake radio traffic which tricked the US into bombing Libya, and a failed attempt to blow up a US facility and blame it on Arabs in 1956. Reports continue to circle in the foreign press blaming the Mossad for the WTC attacks.
People are noticing that the US Government does not really have a case against Osama bin Laden having anything to do with the attacks on the World Trade Towers. After announcing the evidence would be made public, the US Government backtracked, and claimed that the evidence had to remain secret to protect "National Security". Then it turned out that what evidence existed was being destroyed by the NSA and > by the FBI! While the only actual video tapes of Osama bin Laden mentioning the WTC attacks consist of denials, a report was recently published in the media that Osama had confessed and claimed to have nukes. Both claims turned out to be hoaxes; an effort to
manufacture a phony confession to fill in the gap of any real evidence to justify the bombing of Afghani civilians. The video taped confession claimed to be the source of the transcript does not exist, and the BBC found no mention of nuclear weapons in the original version. Careful examination of what evidence has been presented shows it to be a total farce of unsubstantiated and non-court-worthy claims, circumstantial at best.
And, as people stop being made blind by fear, they are starting to realize that bombing the innocents of Afghanistan makes no sense at all no matter what Osama bin Laden may have done, whether he still works for the CIA or not. After all, were American citizens able to prevent the
CIA from killing 80 civilians, many of them children, with a car bomb in Beirut in 1985. Had
the CIA knocked on the doors of American citizens and asked, "Is it okay if we blow up a bunch of kids to get at this one target", I feel safe in saying that most Americans would have replied that they didn't think it was a good idea (The intended target survived the CIA's bomb).
Likewise, had Osama bin Laden knocked on the doors of the Afghani people and said, "Is it okay if we blow up a bunch of kids to get at this one target", I feel safe in saying that most Afghanis would have replied that they didn't think it was a good idea. Doubtless the response was more agreeable from Osama's pals at Langley. As people stop being made blind by fear, they are taking a closer look at the US Government's purported "humanitarian" effort to feed the starving people
of Afghanistan, an effort exemplified by the shutting down of all truck routes into the region and the bombing (twice) of the Red Cross food warehouse, then lying about it afterwards. This has removed all sources of outside food for the starving people living along the proposed oil pipeline route except one' the food packages being dropped from American planes. But there is a problem with those food packages. Ignoring for a moment that most of those packages are either destroyed on hitting the ground or simply fall where they cannot be found, they happen to look like the unexploded munitions the US is also dropping all around Afghanistan. Same size, same color, same type face.
Now, if you are a starving Afghani child, you cannot read English, and you have seen the leaflets that claim those yellow packages being dropped from the planes are a gift of food from the wonderful people of the United States, which package would you pick up? And if perchance you grab
the wrong one and lose a hand, or your eyes, how will you feel about those wonderful people of the United States? This deception of having the unexploded bombs looking like the food packs is not aimed at Osama Bin Laden and it's not aimed at the Taliban; it is aimed at the non-combatant citizens of Afghanistan, including women and children, who are starving slowly to death because of the US-created REDUCTION in humanitarian aid to the region, and who out of that starvation won't hesitate to pick up an unexploded cluster munition, thinking it may be something to eat. But most of all, as the people of the United States cease to be afraid, they will realize that the greatest danger they face isn't Osama bin laden or starving Afghani women and children, but Presidents connected to oil companies who always seem to get us into wars in regions where oil happens to be, and who are willing to do anything, including destroying the civil protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to get that war and that oil.
There are warning signs everywhere that the real agenda of the attacks on the WTC on 9/11 was to pave the way for a transformation of the United States into something no rational Americans would or could ever support. President Bush has done away with the civil protections mandated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by creating a new court system, outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Even more alarming is the strident and continuing calls for the use of torture on suspected terrorists coming from sources such as Allen Dershowitz, from the Los Angeles Times, and from that master of South American torture squads, the CIA. The problem is that while these secret courts and torture squads are supposed to be directed at terrorists, with "terrorists" being defined in the disengenuously named "USA PATRIOT" act as anyone critical of the government!
So loose are the definitions being applied under the new laws that people are being denied their Constitutional right to travel freely based on political views or just for carrying the wrong book! So egregious has been the grab for dictatorial power by the Bush Presidency that even the normally obeisant and MOCKINGBIRD controlled mainstream US press is starting to express doubts, with the New York Times using words like "dictatorial", while MSNBC likens the present regime to that of a third world nation. Even newspapers in Bush's home state are saying he has gone too far. Pravda, the major newspaper of the former USSR, once the most feared enemy of our freedoms, warns that America is losing her freedoms to her own government. Support for the war in Afghanistan is rapidly diminishing.
Even the much-vaunted "coalition" intending to mask the ambitions of a single nation behind the illusion of multi lateral action, has started falling apart. What is an emerging dictatorship to do? The more people stop being afraid, the more they think. The more people think, the more they
realize that something is very wrong with the official version of the WTC attacks. The more people think, the more they realize that something is very wrong with the convenient timing of the attacks with regard to the invasion of Afghanistan already planned and discussed with other nations last March. The more people think, the more they realize that something is very wrong with
the manner in which the government is attacking the civil protections in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The more people think, the more they realize that something is very wrong with the demand for the use of torture on "terrorists" and the very loose definitions of what a terrorist is, able to be applied to anyone who disagrees with the policies of the state.
In order to continue the grab for, as the New York Times describes it, "dictatorial" power, the government has to make the people STOP thinking. And the only way to make the people stop thinking is to make them afraid again, so afraid that they CANNOT think. Which is why I greatly fear that as we head into the holiday season, full of potent American symbols and media coverage of traditional holiday parades and celebrations, that opportunity exists for phony staged terrorist events, staged events designed to keep Americans afraid, keep them surrendering their civil rights, keep them in support of a war for oil, a war for the agenda to, as the current Fortune Magazine describes it, "break OPEC's grip".
Sun Tzu, in "The Art Of War", comments that all war is based on deception. he people of an invading nation have to be deceived into thinking that they act in their own self defense; that they are the ones to have been attacked. The United States government has a long history of using such deceptions to start wars, from claiming that the USS Maine, sunk by a coal bin fire, was sunk by a Spanish mine, to the Gulf Of Tonkin and the torpedoes which never were, to Operation NORTHWOODS, in which the Joint Chiefs planned to stage fake terror attacks to manufacture American support for a war against Cuba.
The present government of the United States NEEDS the American people to be afraid, to be blindly afraid, to react and respond, and not to reason. There is only one way for the government to achieve this, through a phony terror attack such as those planned by Operation NORTHWOODS, and I greatly fear that we will see one in the very near future. Because once a government resorts to terrorizing its own population to control them, it must keep on doing so. A government that uses terror to control its own population cannot ever stop using terror to control its own population, out of fear that a population no longer afraid will start to think clearly about what is going on. Terror has to become legal. Terror has to become accepted as necessary for domestic policy. Hence the call for torture, secret courts, and the abandonment of the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Terror becomes an addiction to those governments who use it on their own people.
Which is why I am certain we will see more of it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ifiwere.html
__________________________________________________________
November 2001
Who was Really Responsible for September 11
from: jclancy@smartchat.net.au
Who Was Really Responsible for September 11?
Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit
[Please note that the sources cited herein are a very mixed bag and include crackpot conspiracy theorists as well as responsible researchers, LaRouchies, and others. Read with critical attention, and believe only after doing your own research.--NY Transfer]
source - "Richard K. Moore" <richard@cyberjournal.org> originally from "Boudewijn Wegerif" <bw@jak.se>
WHAT MATTERS-25 November 16, 2001
Closing the file on who was responsible for the September 11 attacks last week I promised that I would close the file on who was responsible for the September 11 attacks. The desk would then be clear for posting E-letters relating to other matters, especially money matters.
I wrote that there is no doubt in my mind that the bin Laden Al-Q'uaeda network is responsible, along with the CIA, or at least a very powerful group within the CIA. I still think that, and here present the case.
Underlying the CIA complicity in the September 11 attacks is a perceived need for a pseudo-democratic world dictatorship, to preserve the major corporations.
The trigger for the attacks was the imminent and unstoppable worldwide financial collapse. The attacks were a shot in the arm to keep corporate capitalism going a little longer, through massive armaments and other contracts, handouts and tax rebates.
THE HIJACKERS WERE PROBABLY THEMSELVES HIJACKED
After reading scores of e-mails about 9.11 in the last few weeks, it seems clear that the Al-Q'uaeda network was infiltrated and allowed to plot an extreme action against the U.S. by an enemy "inside the gates" that then took over the action at the last minute.
The FBI has made it known that at least 11 of the hijackers did not know they were on a suicide mission (footnote 1).
Items found among their possessions suggest they had been preparing themselves for incarceration. One source said: "It looks as if they expected they might be going to prison, not paradise."
And in an article No Suicide Pilots, Carol A. Valentine presents a convincing argument that the four passenger planes were controlled by advanced robotics and remote-control technology, not the hijackers on board (footnote 2).
Using "Global Hawk technology", planes can be commandeered and controlled remotely from the ground. She cites an International Television News article, dated April 24, 2001, which describes how an unmanned craft was flown across the Pacific. In the article the manager of Global Hawk in Australia boasts, "The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from take-off, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."
Carol Valentine is convinced that the fourth plane, which crashed into an abandoned coal mine near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was "shot" down. "The first TV network reports said exactly that: Flight 93 had been shot down by a military jet." Despite local residents seeing a second plane, possibly an F-16 fighter, in the area and burning debris falling from the sky, the FBI denied that the plane had been shot down and came up with implausible explanations; first of their having been a bomb on board and then of the passengers overwhelming the hijackers.
A number of lists have carried an article by U.S. Army retired Colonel Donn de Grand Pri in which he describes how a group of experienced civilian and military pilots agreed, after 72 hours "of non-stop briefings and debate", that "the extremely skilful manoeuvring of the three aircraft at near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets, was superb." As one Air Force officer - a veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam - explained, "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control." (footnote 3)
The title of the article, The Enemy is Inside the Gates, reflects the group' s conclusion that the September 11 event was orchestrated from inside the U.S. by an "enemy" that has "infiltrated into the highest policy-making positions at the Federal level, and has absolute control, not only of the purse strings, but of the troop build-up and deployment of our military forces, including active, reserve and National Guard units."
SUSPICION FALLS ON ISRAEL
Carol Valentine implies that Israel was behind the action and quotes a September 10 front page story in The Washington Times in which officers of the U.S. Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS ) are quoted as saying of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad agents that they are, "Wildcard, ruthless and cunning" and that they have the capability of targeting US forces and making it look like "a Palestinian/Arab act".
"These SAMS officers are obviously interested in protecting their country," writes Valentine, "but not all Americans are. Some are traitors and pay allegiance to Israel. Recall the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, and American complicity in the attack. During the Six Day War, the Liberty, an American intelligence gathering ship, was sailing in international waters. Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked it for 75 minutes. When four US fighter jets from a nearby aircraft carrier came to protect the Liberty, US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the jets NOT to come to the Liberty's aid, and allowed the Israeli attack to continue. Thirty-four Americans were killed and 171 wounded." (footnote 4)
Valentine also cites how in 1962, US military leaders designed a plan to conduct terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba, to create popular sentiment for invasion of that country. The plan was called Operation Northwoods and included * plans to shoot down a CIA plane designed to replicate a passenger flight and announce that Cuban forces shot it down, * the creation of military casualties by blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba ("....casualty lists in the US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation,"), and * the development of a terror campaign in the Miami and Washington, DC. (footnote 5)
THE CIA CONNECTION
The first real indication of possible CIA complicity in the September 11 attacks came on October 31 when the French daily Le Figaro carried a story of how while in a Dubai hospital receiving treatment for a chronic kidney infection last July, Osama bin Laden met with a top CIA official - presumably the Chief of Station. The story in Le Figaro ends with an account of how when investigating the visit of the CIA agent to bin Laden, the FBI discovered certain plans that had been put together between the CIA and its "Islamic friends" over the years. The paper concludes, "The meeting in Dubai is, so it would seem, consistent with a certain American policy."
Investigative journalist Michael C. Ruppert develops on the theme in an article titled Bin Laden Met with the CIA in July and Walked Away (footnote 6):
Ruppert describes how the meeting, held in bin Laden's private suite, took place at the American hospital in Dubai at a time when bin Laden was a wanted fugitive for the bombings of two U.S. embassies and this year's attack on the U.S.S. Cole. "Bin Laden was eligible for execution according to a 2000 intelligence finding issued by President Bill Clinton before leaving office in January. Yet on July 14th he was allowed to leave Dubai on a private jet and there were no Navy fighters waiting to force him down."
Ruppert lists crucial events both before and after the September 11 suicide attacks, which have been blamed on bin Laden, to establish CIA foreknowledge of them. The list makes clear that the events which have taken place since September 11 are based upon an agenda that has little to do with the attacks and everything to do with advancing the fortunes of U.S. and U.K. oil companies and armaments manufacturers, with close links to the Bush family and their friends.
Millions into billions of dollars were incidentally made on the stock exchange by insiders with foreknowledge of the attacks. Ruppert makes the point that the CIA and other intelligence agencies closely monitor stock trading in real time with highly advanced computer programmes so as to be able "to alert national intelligence services of just such kinds of attacks" . Yet nobody outside this circle was alerted by the unusually big insider trading in airline and insurance stocks pre- September 11.
There is mounting evidence that many, many people knew of the impending attacks, from Muslim school boys in New York to the speculators who were scared away from claiming a $2.5 million profit on put options on American Airlines and United Airlines. Yet we are asked to believe that the CIA and FBI knew nothing about was coming.
In his article Ruppert records several visits by George Bush senior to the bin Laden family and royalty in Saudi Arabia between 1998 and 2000 for the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest arms manufacturer in the U.S. The close bond between the CIA and Pakistan's ISI secret service at a time when the ISI was equally closely connected to the Taliban and bin Laden is also described.
The CIA/ISI connection is taken up more fully by Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa in an article, The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence Agency (ISI) (footnote 7).
Chossudovsky writes that Pakistan's chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad "was in the US when the attacks occurred." He arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks. He had meetings at the State Department "after" the attacks on the WTC. But he also had "a regular visit of consultations" with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11.
According to Chossudovsky, the Bush Administration consciously took the decision in "the post September 11 consultations" with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad to directly "cooperate" with Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance, Commander Masood, which coincidentally occurred two days before the terrorist attacks.
Chossudovsky gives details from an Indian intelligence report that indicate pretty conclusively that "the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks had links to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn has links to agencies of the US government. What this suggests is that key individuals within the US military-intelligence establishment might have known about the ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist "ring-leader" Mohamed Atta and failed to act."
Chussodovsky concludes, "Whether this amounts to the outright complicity of the Bush Administration remains to be firmly established. What is crystal clear, however, is that this war is not a "campaign against international terrorism" as claimed by The Bush administration. It is a war of conquest with devastating consequences for the future of humanity."
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW
"Are you less than satisfied with the official explanations about 9/11?" asks Robert Lederman, columnist for the Greenwich Village Gazette and other papers, in the most comprehensive overview of the September 11 attacks that I have seen (footnote 8).
Lederman, who is also president of A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics), provides evidence in support of "nine for the moment relatively unpopular but nevertheless compelling ideas to consider about the attack".
He comments, "Americans who tend to believe in any or all them are in the minority right now. Perhaps they won't be in the near future."
The nine ideas, with connecting links to URLs, are:
1. This new war is not a conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and American freedom.
2. The destruction of the WTC was anticipated, and might have been preventable.
3. The Rockefeller connection may be the key to unlocking an understanding of this entire issue. Why has their connection to the WTC been omitted from 99.999% of the media coverage about 9/11?
4. Anthrax may not be getting sent to the media and to Congress by terrorists.
5. This conflict is about oil not terrorism, Israel or Islam.
6. Are we bombing the wrong country?
7. Bush is not doing a good job of protecting America. It would be far more accurate to say he's doing a good job of destroying it.
8. There is an occult aspect to the attacks which cannot be ignored or attributed to coincidence.
9. NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not unify New York City, but has done everything in his power to destroy the electoral process and guarantee future social chaos.
"Every one of these ideas has voluminous documentation which can be found in the mainstream media, on the net or in reputable books if one looks for it," writes Lederman. He goes on to give selected references "from which you can learn more". And comments, "While to some it may seem unpatriotic to question the government's actions at this time of crisis let us remember that the original purpose of free speech was to enable Americans to ask exactly these kind of unpopular questions of our elected leaders. Real unity cannot be based on deceiving the American people."
Once again, I wish to thank Jean Hudon who is responsible for the 2,000 strong Earth Rainbow Network list, as also media analyst Robert Rodvick, David Weston, Dick Eastman and Frans Ytterhoeven, for forwarding the e-mails from which I have pieced together this E-letter. To be on their lists, e-mail them at the addresses in footnote 9.
In What Matters-26, which is almost completed, I provide a miscellany of alternative news items that underscore the need for something akin to Ghandi 's Satyagraha truth-bearing movement and Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, to liberate the world from the corporate capitalist money beast.
After WM-26, I will be posting excellent monetary overview articles by Margaret Legum and J. Walter Plinge.
In friendship,
Boudewijn Wegerif, What Matters Programme Folkhogskola Vardingeby**
FOOTNOTES:
1.http://observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,573707,00.html
2.http://www.eyesonamerica.org/200110/10110101.html
3.http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/BigBrother9.htm
4.http://ennes.org
5."Body of Secrets," by James Bamford (Doubleday, 2001), and URLs,
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story
http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
6.http://www.copvcia.com
7.http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
8.http://baltech.org/lederman/9-11-unpopular.html#point2
9.Jean Hudon <gobalvisionary@cybernaute.org> Robert Rodvik
<robrod@uniserve.com> David Weston <dweston@cqm.co.uk> Dick
Eastman eastmanwolfnet@hotmail.com Frans Ytterhoeven <fransy@charline.be
The What Matters Programme is an initiative by Boudewijn Wegerif, to spread information about what is happening in the world today, and how things could be, given a schooling at all levels to free the self and the world from debt/guilt oppression and money madness - a schooling for love. The trustees of the What Matters Programme are the collegiate of Folkhvgskola Verdinge By, an adult education residential college south of Stockholm.
You can read WHAT MATTERS E-letters 1-24 at the WHAT MATTERS web site - http://www.whatmatters.nu/wmemails/wmemailsindex.html
Boudewijn Wegerif, Torsberget, 669 92, Deje Sweden.
Tel: +46.552.21112
Administration: Johanna Heckscher, FHSK Vardingeby, 150 21 Molnbo, Sweden.
==========================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
==========================================================
nytcov-11.23.01-23:25:39-1023 " JC
__________________________________________________________
The Toronto Star November 27, 2001
Did bin Laden have help from U.S. friends?
by Thomas Walkom
An intriguing new book, just published in France, details the curiously amicable relationship between the regime of U.S. President George W. Bush and Afghanistan's Taliban, a relationship that turned hostile only after the terror attacks of Sept. 11.
Ben Laden: La Verité Interdite (Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth) is written by former French spook Jean-Charles Brisard and journalist Guillaume Dasquie. Both are said to be plugged into the murky world of intelligence. During his time with French intelligence, Brisard was regarded as something of an expert on bin Laden's finances.
The nub of their argument is that the Bush regime's attitude toward the Taliban - and even to bin Laden - was driven by the new president's fixation on energy. A stable regime in Afghanistan would allow construction of an oil and gas pipeline from the former Soviet republics in Central Asia to Pakistan and the sea. And initially, Washington's best bet for a stable regime in Afghanistan was the Taliban.
From February, when the Taliban first offered to extradite bin Laden in exchange for U.S. recognition, until August when negotiations stalled, the Bush administration and the government it later labelled a terrorist regime got along just fine.
Indeed, the book quotes John O'Neill, a former director of anti-terrorism for the Federal Bureau of Investigation as complaining that American and Saudi oil interests acting through the U.S. State Department kept interfering with efforts to track down bin Laden.
In particular, the authors say, O'Neill was irked after the State Department refused to let his FBI team return to Yemen to investigate the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole there last year. Frustrated, he quit to take a private sector job. Unfortunately for him, that job was as head of security in New York's World Trade Center. O'Neill was killed on Sept. 11.
Skeptics might argue that his death proved convenient for the authors. Now there is no one to dispute their account of what he said. Certainly, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth has the whiff of an old-fashioned conspiracy theory starring the usual panoply of villains.
Still, the details that Brisard and Dasquie provide (including the fact that the Taliban hired the niece of former CIA director Richard Helms to orchestrate their publicity) do not contradict what was already known about the relationship between Washington and its soon-to-be arch-enemy. In fact, they support it.
Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid's well-regarded book Taliban: Islam, Oil And The New Great Game in Central Asia outlines how oil politics has affected U.S. policy in Afghanistan. The Taliban's unprecedented offer to extradite bin Laden to a third country, well before the Sept. 11 attacks, was reported by the Times of London in February. In September, this newspaper (Toronto Star) reported on the often cozy relationship between Washington and the Taliban.
Last month, the Washington Post reported that Sudan had offered in 1996 to extradite bin Laden, who was wanted at that time for attacks on U.S. servicemen in Saudi Arabia.
However, the U.S. declined that offer. Instead, it agreed with Sudan's decision to deport bin Laden and his entourage to a place where he couldn't do any damage - Afghanistan. The official reason for U.S. reluctance was that it wasn't sure a case against him could stand up in court. Saudi Arabia, the other extradition destination proposed by the Sudanese, refused to take him.
But there is a pattern. Earlier this month, the Guardian, a U.K. newspaper, reported that FBI agents had been told by the Bush administration to back off investigating members of the bin Laden clan living in the U.S. In September, the Wall Street Journal documented the lucrative business connections between the bin Laden family and senior U.S. Republicans, including the president's father, George Bush Sr.
What are we to make of all of this? One possible conclusion is that the bin Laden terror problem was allowed to get out of hand because bin Laden, himself, had powerful protectors in both Washington and Saudi Arabia. If that's true, no wonder the Bush administration prefers that he be killed rather than allowed to testify in open court.
The other conclusions - questions really - have to do with the justification for the war on Afghanistan. If the Taliban unilaterally offered in February to extradite bin Laden (an offer they repeated after Sept. 11), were they just kidding? If not, was the war necessary?
This question will become particularly important if the U.S. fails to find the terrorist it says started this war, the man it allowed to go to Afghanistan in the first place.
Thomas Walkom <twalkom@thestar.ca>
_________________________________________________________
December 1st, 2001
Israeli Mossad Links To World Trade Center Attack
A US military intelligence source revealed details of an internal intelligence memo that points to the Israeli Mossad intelligence service having links to the World Trade Center and Pentagon requested his name be withheld, confirmed the internal US intelligence memo circulated four weeks ago described information that pointed to the threat of a covert Israeli operation on US soil to turn mass public opinion against Palestinian Arabs via an apparent terrorist attack on US interests that would give Israel the green light to implement a large scale military onslaught against the Palestinian Arab population.
The 11 September attack has been described by experts as being too sophisticated for a lone terrorist group to execute. This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to be extremely familiar with both air force one flight operations, civil airline flight paths and aerial assault tactics on sensitive US cities like Washington, Stated David Stern an expert on Israeli intelligence operations.
The attacks targeted the Pentagon, World Trade Center towers, with the White House and Air Force One also being targets according to the FBI. The attacks have certainly turned US public opinion months of Palestinian uprising, heavy criticism of Israel over war crimes allegations and racism by a UN conference in Durban. The attacks serve no Arab group or nations interests but their timing came in the midst of international condemnation of Israel for its policy of death squad assassination of Palestinian political and police figures, added Stern.
If verified, the news of Israel´s involvement in the US attack will come as no surprise to intelligence experts. The state of Israel has a long history of covert operations against Western targets with attacks on the King David Hotel, USS Liberty, murder of a Scandinavian UN envoy as well as espionage against the US during the Jonathan Pollard case. On Wednesday the US defense department issued a warning to its officials to halt the leak of information on the investigation which it says is happening on a daily basis since the attacks occurred.
Source: Stern-Intel YOU CAN SEE THIS ARTICLE FROM THIS ADDRESS:
http://www.stopthenato.org/index.php/m/zit/id_p/10/opt/read_e/id_s/86.html
_________________________________________________________
December 2001
Western intelligence knew of Laden plan since 1995: Report
http://hindustantimes.com/nonfram/081201/dlame10.asp
AFP Berlin, December 7th, 2001
Western secret services knew as far back as 1995 that suspected terror mastermind Osama bin Laden planned to attack civilian sites using commercial passenger planes, German newspaper Die Welt said Friday. Quoting sources close to western intelligence services, Die Welt said that authorities did not take seriously the threat of the plan, known as Project Bojinka.
The plan was discovered in January 1995 by Philippine police who were investigating a possible attack against Pope John Paul II on a visit to Manila.
They found details of the plan in a computer seized in an apartment used by three men who were part of Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.
It provided for 11 planes to be exploded simultaneously by bombs placed on board, but also in an alternative form for several planes flying to the United States to be hijacked and flown into civilian targets.
Among targets mentioned was the World Trade Center in New York, which was destroyed in the September 11 terror attacks in the United States that killed thousands.
Other targets mentioned were CIA offices in Virginia and the Sears Tower in Chicago, Die Welt said.
The plot re-surfaced during the trial in New York in 1997 of Pakistani Ramsi Youssef, the mastermind of the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
Die Welt said the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and CIA would have known about the plan at the latest at this time.
________________________________________________________
December 8th, 2001
Centre for Research on Globalisation
http://globalresearch.ca <http://globalresearch.ca/>
NEW REVELATIONS ON 9-11
DID GEORGE W. KNOW?
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that "he warned the United States of an attack 12 days before the September 11 atrocity".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Administration knew that a terrorist attack was imminent. Twelve days before the 9-11 attacks, President Hosni Mubarak, had warned the US.
Below is the text of the Associated Press report. Deafening Silence of the US Media. The story has been barely mentioned by major US newspapers. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (8 December ) devotes two sentences to it.
If the US government knew and failed to act, this raises serious issues. It also bears on our understanding and interpretation of the 9-11 events.
Was it negligence or some form of "complicity" on the part of US officials? Was there a cover-up? If it was negligence, who then is responsible?
Did George W. Bush know? George W. and President Mubarak are said to be friends. George W. talks regularly to President Mubarak. On the 6th of December, Mubarak received a telephone call from George W. Mubarak's revelations concerning 9-11 were published by a Lebanese newspaper on the 7th.
Why did the Bush Administration fail to take precautionary measures? The least we could expect is an inquiry.
Michel Chossudovsky, CRG, 8 December 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egypt Leader Says He Warned America
Associated Press, 7 December 2001
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca, 8 December 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egypt Leader Says He Warned America BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak says he warned the United States that "something would happen" 12 days before the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington.
In an interview published Friday by the left-wing Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, Mubarak also said it would be a grave mistake if Israeli forces were to kill Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
Mubarak did not reveal how he learned in late August of a possible terror attack on the United States. He said he was taken aback by the scale of the Sept. 11 attacks, when hijackers seized four U.S. airliners and crashed two into New York's World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside during an apparent struggle in the cockpit.
"We expected that something was going to happen and informed the Americans. We told them," Mubarak said. He did not mention a U.S. response.
"But nobody expected the event would be of such enormity. We did not know that they would hit this target or that, and we were all surprised when planes with passengers on board hit the twin towers," Mubarak said.
Washington has said that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA issued a warning that bin Laden was pressing for terrorist action against Americans. The warning was based on new intelligence but did not have specific information on the type of attack, a date or a location.
Mubarak also commented on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Recent Israeli airstrikes have hit targets within 100 yards of Arafat's offices.
Mubarak said that if Israel were to kill Arafat, it would create a vacuum in the Palestinian leadership that none of the "six to eight contenders" would be able to fill.
"Leaderships would emerge that would vie for popularity and compete in staging violent operations, internally and externally, against Israel, plunging (the region) into chaos. They (Israel) should understand this and know that it is dangerous," Mubarak said.
"And what would happen after Arafat? Who would Israel hold responsible for (acts of violence) - the leaders of Hamas or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?" Mubarak said, referring to two militant Palestinian factions.
Hamas has claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings that killed 25 people and wounded scores in Jerusalem and Haifa last weekend. The PFLP claimed responsibility for the assassination of the Israeli tourism minister in October.
Copyright AP 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crisis at a Glance: Latest developments at home and abroad
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 8 December 2001
....WHAT DID HE KNOW? Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told a Lebanese newspaper that he warned the United States 12 days before the Sept. 11 attacks that "something would happen." He said the "enormity" of the attack was a surprise.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LEB112A.html
________________________________________________________
Dec 9th, 2001
Subject: Re: 9-11. More doubts.
... a part of discussion...
A few more doubts!
You are right by saying,
" The 11 September attack has been described by experts as being too sophisticated for a one terrorist group to execute. "This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency".
Osama bin Ladin who is being blamed for the attack if had the capability of doing it and also the luck to be successful, should have helped his organisation when all hell was let loose on
Afghanistan. There was more cause and a better opportinity for him to lanuch more terror attacks against the US.
Again, the 19 highjackers, the FBI has listed, and are stated to be dead in the attack, among them four are stil alive and a fifth one had actually died two years earlier. If the list is wrong about five it could have similar degree of veracity regarding the remaining ones.
13 of the 19 men listed are of Saudi origin. What prompted Bush to go against Afghanistan? Probably Afghanistan had no ability to strike back. Or the government of Taliban was the only Islamic one.
Tariq Mehmood
________________________________________________________
AP. 14 December 2001. Many in Mideast Doubt bin Laden Tape.
CAIRO -- Osama Bin Laden's latest tape left some viewers in the Mideast unconvinced of his involvement in the Sept. 11 terror attacks and suspicious of U.S. motives in publicizing the tape.
"Of course it is fabricated," said Dia'a Rashwan, a Cairo-based expert on Islamic movements, as he watched the tape Thursday on the Qatari satellite channel Al-Jazeera. "If this is the kind of evidence that America has, then the blood of thousands who died and were injured in Afghanistan is on (President) Bush's head."
In much of the Mideast, public opinion has been solidly against the United States, accused of hurting innocent fellow Muslims with its war on terrorism. Before the Bush administration released the tape Thursday, several U.S. officials had said they hoped it could help convince the world of bin Laden's guilt.
Moderate Arab governments back the U.S. war on terrorism and accept that bin Laden masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. But anti-U.S. sentiment on the streets has led those governments to keep quiet about support that ranges from providing staging grounds for U.S. warplanes to passing on intelligence about militants to U.S. investigators.
Because the quality of the audio was so poor, most Arabs listening to the tape could not follow what bin Laden was saying, lessening its potential impact in the Arab world. Several Arab satellite channels, including the influential Al-Jazeera station, showed the tape with English subtitles.
"Is that possible! I can't believe bin Laden did it. The translation is wrong and we hardly heard his voice. America just wants to implicate Muslims," said Nadia Saqr, an Egyptian mother of two.
In Kuwait, Ahmed Bishara, who heads the National Democratic Movement, said the tape "is not going to make a big switch in opinion. ... It will put the icing on the cake."
Jordanian political analyst Labib Kamhawi said Thursday's video at the most showed bin Laden praising the attacks, but "does not prove that bin Laden was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks."
Mohamed al-Amir al-Sayed Awad Atta, a 65-year-old retired Cairo lawyer, didn't watch the tape. Told of bin Laden's comment by The Associated Press, Atta was angry and skeptical. In a telephone interview, he declared the tape a "farce."
"America is the land of aberration and forgery," Atta said, shouting"damn America!" before abruptly hanging up.
_______________________________________________________
December 18th, 2001
9/11 - What Was Israel's Role?
Fox News revelations point to an ominous conclusion
by Justin Raimondo
When is American foreign policy going to start putting America first?
The US had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by vetoing a UN resolution condemning violence on all sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The resolution condemned terrorism, no matter what the source, called for the creation of a "monitoring mechanism" to prevent violence, denounced executions without trial, and said the destruction of property must cease. You gotta problem with that?
Negrooponte's Veto
This administration does: John Negroponte, American ambassador to the UN, justified the US veto by averring that the resolution aimed to "isolate politically one of the parties to the conflict through an, attempt to throw the weight of the Council behind the other party.'' The resolution, said Negroponte, was unsatisfactory because it didn't specifically mention "recent acts of terrorism'' against Israelis. Naturally, this scuttled the whole thing, as it was intended to do.
The Victimological Olympics
For this argument, if carried on long enough, would lead to an infinite regression of victimological examples: the pro-Arab bloc would insist on specifically mentioning the supposedly accidental killing of five Palestinian children by an Israeli booby-trap bomb planted near a school. This would be the cue for the Israeli side to come up with a Hamas-Hizbollah atrocity that merits inclusion - and, before you know it, we're all the way back to 1948 with the pro-Arabists demanding the inclusion of the massacre at Deir Yassein, and, naturally, the Zionist bloc doing them one better by moving for some mention of the Roman conquest and persecution of the Jews.
THE WAR AGAINST THE WORLD
The US veto undermines the war effort, and makes the Americans seem as if they are waging a war not only on Islam, but against the entire world on behalf of Israel. After decades of trying to prove its bona fides as an honest broker of peace in the region, it is the US that is effectively isolated. The resolution was co-sponsored (or amended) by France and the Security Council vote was 12-1, with Britain and Norway abstaining. Whatever credibility the US had in the Arab world - very little, I'm afraid - was lost with that one arrogant gesture. So much for the grand "coalition" that Colin Powell has been building: the Israeli lobby in the US has demolished it with a single blow.
THE LAST LAUGH
Is that the demonic laughter of the Mad Sheik I hear, chortling in his cave at this act of American self-sabotage? It may be Osama bin Laden is not long for this world. Yet he will die happy in the knowledge that the US is sowing the seeds of his future warrior army, who will spring like Muslim Myrmidons out of Palestine's blood-soaked earth.
BATTLEGROUND AMERICA
Speaking of sabotage, the story of the gigantic Israeli spy operation in the US - and its mysterious activities in the weeks prior to 9/11 - continues to amaze and shock even me. When I wrote, a few weeks ago, that the detention of some 60 Israelis in connection with 9/11 was "ominous" little did I realize just how much of an understatement that would turn out to be. It is often said that, post-9/11, the US is going through what the Israelis have had to endure for decades. The series of Fox News special reports on Israeli penetration of US intelligence assets puts this insight in an entirely new light. For it appears, from what we are learning, that the struggle between two desert tribes in a far away land has truly been brought home to the US: America, we are discovering to our horror, has become a battleground for both sides in that ancient conflict.
ENDS & MEANS
As I related last week, the first part of this astonishing four-part series by Fox News reporter Carl Cameron presents credible evidence suggesting Israeli intelligence had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. The second and third parts show they had the means to acquire this knowledge. According to Cameron,
"Fox News has learned that some American terrorist investigators fear certain suspects in the Sept. 11 attacks may have managed to stay ahead of them, by knowing who and when investigators are calling on the telephone."
ALL ROADS LEAD TO AMDOCS
Cameron takes us through an explanation of how and why virtually all telephone calls in the US are billed by a single company, Amdocs Ltd., which just happens to be headquartered in Israel. Chances are that when you make a call, the record of the call and the billing is done through Amdocs. With a virtual monopoly in the US, and tentacles worldwide, Cameron reports that "it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it." Amdocs denies any wrongdoing, but sources tell Fox News that, in 1999,
"The super secret national security agency, headquartered in northern Maryland, issued what's called a Top Secret sensitive compartmentalized information report, TS/SCI, warning that records of calls in the United States were getting into foreign hands - in Israel, in particular."
SPIES IN THE WOODWORK
It's not that anyone is listening in on all these calls, but that these methods are a way to know who is calling whom, when, and for how long - vital information in and of itself. Cameron assures us that the White House and the Pentagon are immune from such surveillance, but an article in Insight, the magazine put out by the Washington Times, showed how Israeli intelligence had thoroughly penetrated the communications system at the Clinton White House. According to co-authors J. Michael Waller and Paul M. Rodriguez, writing in May of last year, the FBI was
"Probing an explosive foreign-espionage operation that could dwarf the other spy scandals plaguing the U.S. government. Insight has learned that FBI counterintelligence is tracking a daring operation to spy on high-level US officials by hacking into supposedly secure telephone networks. The espionage was facilitated, federal officials say, by lax telephone-security procedures at the White House, State Department and other high-level government offices and by a Justice Department unwillingness to seek an indictment against a suspect."
"The espionage operation may have serious ramifications," wrote Waller and Rodriguez, "because the FBI has identified Israel as the culprit."
MONICA TELLS ALL
Dozens of officials confirmed the story, telling the authors of this fascinating piece how the Israelis had managed to penetrate not only State Department telephone lines, but also those in the White House, the Defense Department, and the Justice Department. That the President knew this at the time is beyond doubt; it came out, you'll remember, during l'affaire Lewinsky, when Monica testified that, on March 29, 1997, she and Clinton were desecrating the Oval Office and she specifically remembered it because, as the Starr Report put it:
"He suspected that a foreign embassy was tapping his telephones, and heproposed cover stories. If ever questioned, she should say that the two of them were just friends. If anyone ever asked about their phone sex, she should say that they knew their calls were being monitored all along, and the phone sex was just a put on."
LITTLE DID THEY KNOW
That "foreign embassy" was the Israelis'. It is spooky, in retrospect, to read the comments of the American intelligence and law enforcement officials who sourced this pioneering Insight piece (which, for some reason, is no longer available on their website but is still available, thanks to the miracle of Google). "It's a huge security nightmare," said one senior US official. "The implications are severe," another unnamed official chimed in. "We're not even sure we know the extent of it," said a third high-ranking intelligence official. "All I can tell you is that we think we know how it was done. That alone is serious enough, but it's the unknown that has such deep consequences."
OUT OF THE MURK
Ah, but the deepness of these consequences is just beginning to be known. As the Fox News revelations make all too clear, they are a lot deeper than anyone, including Waller and Rodriguez, could possibly have imagined last year. The picture that is beginning to emerge out of the murk is this: the Israelis were watching the hijackers and/or their associates, and they very possibly had access to a complete set of the conspirators' phone records, if not direct access to the content of their conversations. In the months prior to the attacks, the Israelis did indeed issue a warning of "massive" terrorist attacks, but, in an effort to protect both their sources and methods, their warning gave no details and was therefore practically useless.
THE COMVERSE CONNECTION
The third part of the Fox series shows how the Israelis had access, not only to phone records, but also to the wiretaps being conducted by US law enforcement agencies. This access could have easily been provided, Cameron points out, by yet another hi-tech Israeli communications company, Comverse, which operates as practically a branch of the Israeli government, and enjoys near monopolistic status here in the US.
When you place a call, it goes through a complicated network of routers and switchers. The way wiretapping works is that customized computers are linked to that network via specialized software, and the system intercepts, records, and stores wiretapped calls. But this system has a "back door" that could have easily been opened by Israeli intelligence. Comverse maintains a link to the wiretapping computers, on the grounds that it is necessary for system "maintenance." Over the opposition of some patriotic law enforcement officers, this process was authorized by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). But that wasn't the end of it. According to Fox News,
"Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were both warned Oct. 18 in a hand-delivered letter from 15 local, state and federal law enforcement officials, who complained that 'law enforcement's current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALEA was enacted.'"
ASHCROFT'S COMPLICITY
But Ashcroft is too busy rounding up Arabs and closing down their organizations to worry about the wholesale penetration of our communications system - including "secure" networks at the White House, the Defense Department, and elsewhere - by our wonderful allies, the Israelis. Cameron cites several unnamed law enforcement agents - concerned about the ominous implications of the Israeli penetration in light of 9/11 - who say that even raising the issue is "career suicide."
I HOPE YOU'RE SITTING DOWN
Okay, so the Israelis have the phone lines over at the White House, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, and, for all we know, your local dogcatcher's office bugged to the max. So they have the capability to know where and when practically every phone call in the US, and large sections of the rest of the world, is made, and to whom. As fantastic as it sounds, given the advance of technology and the reputation of the Mossad, I'm willing to believe it. What's really alarming, however, is that, as Cameron reports:
"On a number of cases, suspects that they had sought to wiretap and survey immediately changed their telecommunications processes. They started acting much differently as soon as those supposedly secret wiretaps went into place."
BEYOND THE BEGUINE
The implications of this stunning news go far beyond my original contention: that the Israelis had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and simply failed to let us know the details. For it all depends on the intended target of the wiretaps: was it the Israelis, or Bin Laden's agents? If the former were acting differently after wiretaps were put in place, it means only that the Israelis were using their sources and methods to protect their own: if the latter, it means the Israelis were using their sources and methods to protect the Bin Ladenites. That is a possibility no one - including me - wants to contemplate, and, in all truthfulness, I must confess I cannot believe it. I am forced to concede, however, that, given what we now know, it is possible. Until and unless the government comes clean, we won't know for sure.
INVESTIGATE THE ISRAELI CONNECTION
At the end of his second report, Carl Cameron remarked to Brit Hume that the question of the Israeli connection to 9/11 "came up in the select intelligence committee on Capitol Hill today," and "they intend to look into what we reported last night." Naturally, all this is occurring in secret, with the likelihood of a cover-up all but certain. What is needed is a public investigation, and full disclosure of the Israeli role, if any, in 9/11.
WHERE IS THE MEDIA?
That, of course, is the role of the media - and, in this regard, it is interesting to note that Cameron's explosive investigation has not been picked up by a single news outlet, as far as I know (although I would be happy to be proved wrong) or discussed by a single "mainstream" columnist. Yet Fox News is hardly a marginal new source. In a business where scandal and especially spy stories are hot, you would think that a story like this, with its tie-in to 9/11, would have the other networks and the major media falling all over themselves to get a piece of the action. But not this time, at least so far.
FAN MAIL FROM SOME CRANKY FLOUNDER
It's funny, but when I wrote my first column on this subject, I got a whole bunch of nutball letters from anti-Semitic cranks who told me that "the Jews" would never let me get away with it, and that I am now a "marked man." This story, wrote one correspondent, "will go nowhere," because "the Jews" control the media, blah blah blah. I laughed, reading these perfervid notes, most of them WRITTEN IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, wondering at the infinite capacity of people to fit reality into ideological categories rather than the other way 'round. After all, the mere fact that the story was broadcast on Fox News, a major media organization, appears to contradict the self-evidently absurd thesis that the "Elders of Zion," sitting in a control room somewhere, determine what news we're allowed to read.
THE ANTI-SEMITIC FALLACY
I can only hope, for Mr. Cameron's sake, that what amounts to "career suicide" in law enforcement doesn't hold true at Fox News. Israel certainly has many vocal and very active supporters, who are quick to make their opinions known. But it is false to posit a "Jewish-controlled" media, no matter what the ethnicity or political persuasion of editors, owners, or whatever: these media companies are beholden to their shareholders, and to the market. Reporting the news is an intensely competitive business: there is no way to enforce an embargo on certain information, not in this day and age. There is no "Jewish conspiracy" - only the machinations of a particular foreign government and its uncritical supporters in this country, who span the ethnic and religious as well as the political spectrum.
THE TRUTH, AT LAST
It is too soon to say whether or not this story has "legs," as they say, and is going anywhere soon. But one thing's for sure: Fox News has blown the mystery of 9/11 wide open. This isn't going to just go away. On September 11, the American people looked on in disbelief at the sight of not only the World Trade Center going down but the Pentagon - the Pentagon, fer chrissake! - under attack and apparently defenseless. My first thought, at any rate, was: How could this happen? With these latest surprising developments - pointing to an ambiguous Israeli role, at best, in all this - I fear we are just beginning to discover the answer to that question.
Mr. Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com
Source:
by courtesy & C 2001 Justin Raimondo & Antiwar.com
______________________________________________________
December 20, 2001
CIA may have set up Bin Laden video 'confession'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/GWeekly/Story/0,3939,621036,00.html
CIA may have set up Bin Laden video 'confession'
Ed Vulliamy and Jason Burke
Guardian Weekly
In the cavernous front room, beneath flickering neon lights, they gathered to watch. Outside, darkness had fallen, but though the Ramadan fast was over the men who sat riveted to the screen of the single television in Jalalabad's Afghan Hotel were not in the mood for the usual celebration.
On the screen flickered a blurred picture: a tall, grey-bearded man in a white turban talking in Arabic to other similarly attired associates.,These fuzzy, broken images were the "smoking gun" - Osama bin Laden's long-awaited, albeit apparently unwitting, personal confession.
The men in the Afghan Hotel had a more pressing, local interest too. According to the American authorities who solemnly released the tape last week, it had been found nearby, in a ruined building once used by Arab fighters from Bin Laden's al-Qaida organisation. It had been seized when mojahedin fighters entered their city a few hours after al-Qaida's Taliban protectors had left.
That, the viewers knew, was certainly possible. By the morning after the "liberation" of Jalalabad, fighters loyal to Commander Hazrat Ali had seized safehouses and training complexes linked to al-Qaida. Cmdr Ali has cooperated with the Americans and the story that he had passed the tape on to the CIA was very plausible.
But then doubts began to surface. Why had Bin Laden broken his tight security to talk? Why had he not used one of his normally favoured media ,outlets? Was the tape genuine? Was this indeed Bin Laden at all?
The tape was certainly damning. It showed Bin Laden laughing and boasting about the September 11 attacks as he talks to his interviewer, a Saudi cleric who had travelled through war-racked Afghanistan to see him. Bin Laden, flanked by two key aides, describes how the planes did far more damage to the World Trade Centre than he ever imagined. "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy . . . that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors," he says. "I mwas the most optimistic of them all."
Bin Laden also indicates that the men who carried out the plot knew that, they were on a "martyrdom operation" but did not have details of the mmission until the last minute.
Last weekend, as the debate the tape provoked continued across the Islamic world, several intelligence sources have suggested that the tape, although genuine, is the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by the CIA through a second intelligence service, possibly Saudi or, Pakistani. "They needed someone whom they could persuade or coerce to get close to Bin Laden and someone whom Bin Laden would feel secure talking to. If it works, you have got the perfect evidence at the perfect moment," said one security source. "It's a masterstroke."
The focus of suspicion is the Saudi dissident preacher who appears to have taped the interview, conducted according to the timecode on the video on November 9, in what appears to be a guesthouse in the Afghan city of Kandahar. Though unidentified in the one-hour recording, security sources have said that the interviewer, who appears to be disabled from the waist down, is Ali Saeed al-Ghamdi, a former assistant professor of theology at a seminary in Mecca. Saudis who watched the, tape said the interviewer's accent betrayed roots in the southwest of their country, either the lower Hejaz or Asir province, where most of the 15 Saudi hijackers were from. Bin Laden bows down to greet the cleric, who has not stood up to greet him. Only someone who was incapable of rising would not be on his feet in the presence of such a famous and revered man, Islamic experts said.
However, Western intelligence officials identified the dinner guest as,Khaled al-Harbi, a legless former fighter in Afghanistan, Bosnia andChechnya who was not regarded as a religious scholar.
Unlike Mr al-Ghamdi, who had been banned from preaching by the government in 1994, Mr Harbi has never been arrested by the Saudi government nor included on any security watch list, the Saudi official said. Senior Saudi government figures and religious scholars tend to dismiss such men as insignificant. "They are not big-time and they don't have the legitimacy and the religious scholarship that the big guys have," said Nawaf Obeid, a Saudi security analyst. "They make a name for themselves with how extreme they are. They aggrandise themselves by claiming they are with Bin Laden."
Security sources stress that, despite his Islamist credentials, Mr al-Ghamdi would still be a potential point of contact for Pakistani, Saudi or Egyptian intelligence.
"He was known because he was suspected of being involved in the gathering of international finance for al-Qaida. He is a peripheral figure who wants to be something bigger and is frustrated. It's a classic profile. They could have turned him," one security official for a Gulf intelligence agency contacted in Peshawar said. Experts said that the tape bears a marked resemblance to secretly filmed evidence used by the FBI against major American Mafia figures in recent years.
Whatever its provenance, the video has polarised opinion in the Arab world. Abdul Wahab Badrakhan, the deputy editor of al-Hayat newspaper, said: "Only those with a fanatical mindset would deny what they can now see."
One such man is Syed, 38, who fought alongside Bin Laden in Afghanistan during the 1980s. "There is no way Osama would have done something like this," he said. "He was a quiet man with great reverence for human life. The Osama I see happily describing people dying is not the Osama I knew and loved."
General Hamid Gul, a hardline former head of Pakistan's ISI spy agency, suggested that the figure in the video might be a lookalike. Others have queried the translation of the poor-quality Arabic soundtrack and the way that certain key elements - such as the location where the film was made - are inaudible.
_____________________________________________________
December 24 2001
Was the attack on Afghanistan planned prior to September 11?
Sept 11, Bush and Cheney were involved!
stevegreyau@yahoo.co.uk article#5862
http://ontario.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=5862&group=webcast
(Dec 20 2001)
COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE USA WERE
ORGANIZED, AT LEAST IN PART ,BY USA AUTHORITIES, AS AN EXCUSE TO START AN ALREADY PLANNED WAR IN SOUTH ASIA, AND AS AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE WEST SINCE THE FACIST ERA.
THIS EVIDENCE COMES IN 4 PARTS. PART 1 DEALS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAN TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN WAS ALREADY IN PLACE WELL BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11.
PART 2 DEALS WITH A DETAILED LOOK AT THE EVENTS OF THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER
11, DEMONSTRATING THAT USA AUTHORITIES AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL DELIBERATELY
ALLOWED THE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE. PART 3 DETAILS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE BUSH FAMILY, THE BINLADEN FAMILY AND THE CIA. PART 4 DEALS WITH
MISCELLANEOUS INCONSTISTANCIES IN THE OFFICIAL STORIES, AND MISCELLANEOUS
SUSPICIOUS EVENTS.
PART 1
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat has said that senior US officials told him in mid July, that they planned to attack Afghanistan by mid October, at the latest, before the winter snow set in.(BBC report by by George Arney Sept 18, 2001).
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm)
People with military experience, and my own research into the timeline of previous, comparable military campaigns suggest that it would simply not be possible to organize a military operation on the scale of that launched by the USA against Afghanistan, in the space of 25 days, which was the time between September 11, and the beginning of the attack on Afghanistan. It doesn’t matter how angry the USA might have been, it’s just not logistically possible. There are those who have suggested that the USA is always ready to attack anybody at any time. This simply isn’t possible, even for a country with the powerful resources of the USA. As a comparison, the time taken for the USA to be ready to attack Iraq in 1991, was 4 1/2 months. The attack was not delayed by attempts to find a negotiated settlement. Negotiations took place during the time that the USA was preparing for its attack. The attack took place as soon as they were militarily capable of doing so.
And if it is to be suggested that the US military really is so astonishingly razor sharp, that it is able to organize an operation like this in 25 days, then this is wildy inconsistent with their unbelievable lack of readiness on the morning of September 11. This will be discussed in part 2, and cross referenced back to the point that I have just been making.
Thirdly, it is preposterous to suggest that the USA can have identified the culprit behind the September 11 attacks within the time, that they claim to have. While it’s reasonable that a list of suspects would immediately spring to mind, it is another matter to be so certain of someone’s guilt that you are prepared to attack another country on the basis of that suspicion. It is instructive to review the timeline of the "investigation" into September 11.
Within a few hours, Bin Laden was already being named as the main suspect. Within 12 hours, it was being claimed that they were "almost certain" of Bin Laden’s guilt. Within a few days, they were proclaiming his guilt as 100% certain, using the expression, "his fingerprints everywhere", and were already threatening to attack Afghanistan. This is clearly ridiculous. It’s not even enough time to set up a committee to discuss the personnel and logistics of the investigation. This will be discussed in more detail in part 2, and again, cross referenced back to this point. But it is clear already, that at the very least, USA authorities didn’t care who did September 11. They were happy to use it as opportunity to attack anyone at whom it was convenient to point the finger, and we have information which alleges that they were already making plans for Afghanistan.
These 3 points, when taken together, form a compelling scenario that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned prior to September 11. This does not, in itself provide absolute proof that the USA was involved in organising September 11, that will come in part 2, but it does already put it forward as the most plausible explanation. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then, in order to believe that the USA was not involved in organising September 11, we have to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened to occur at a time which could not have been better, from a propaganda point of view, for a war which the USA had already planned. While this is possible, it isn’t really probable. It’s just too convenient.
It will clarify things, to list the possible scenarios, that arise at this point, assuming that we accept that plans were already in place to attack Afghanistan:
1) The USA had nothing to do with the September 11 attack, and was genuinely suprised by it, but saw the propaganda opportunities for its forthcoming war, and considered this to be more important than identifying the real culprits.
2) The USA did not have anything to do with organising the attacks, but knew in advance that they were coming, and deliberately allowed them to happen, for propaganda reasons.
3)The USA was actively involved in planning September 11, as part of an integrated plan, which involved the coming war in Afghanistan.
While I have not yet presented specific evidence for any of these scenarios, common sense tells us, if we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was preplanned, then scenario 3 is the only plausible explanation. Scenarios 1 and 2 require us to believe that the convenient timing of the terrorist attacks was just by chance. In respect of scenario 2, it might be suggested that the date of mid October was itself, planned around the terrorist attack which they knew was coming. But this doesn’t make a lot of sense either, because the date of mid October is explained in a far more plausible manner, by the allegations of Niaz Naik, and we would have to believe that US intelligence about an attack which they were not involved in was so specific, that by July, two months before Sept 11, they were already planning the date of their attack on Afghanistan around it. This is highly improbable. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then Scenario 3 is the only credible explanation. For us to deny that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, we must believe 1) That Niaz Naik is lying. 2) That the US was able to organise the attack within a time which defies accepeted military logistics, and 3) That since they cannot possibly have known who the real culprit was, within a few hours, they chose Afghanistan simply because they wanted to be seen to be doing something, and Bin Laden was an easy scapegoat.
The evidence which is presented in part 2, will interweave with these scenarios with constant cross referencing, and demonstrates conclusively that active collusion by US authorties in the planning of the attacks is the only possible explanation.
PART 2
On the morning of September 11, the largest aviation crisis in the history of the world took place. Before continuing, it is relevant to examine the standard proceedures which take place in the event of a hijacking, the approach of an unauthorised or unidentified aircraft, the failure of communications, or any other unscheduled aviation activity, regardless of whether any immediate threat is perceived. The air force is alerted and jet fighters are put into the air immediately. According to a report on a Russian website, the commander in chief of the Russian air force says that such a situation can be responded to in about 1 minute. In fact, he said that the terrorist attack on Sept 11, should have been impossible to carry out, if normal security proceedures were in place, and claimed that Russia itself had easily dealt with a similar situation there, although he declined to give any details. (http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm ) The purpose of interception is to closely shadow the plane, thus giving exact information about its movements, possibly keeping radio contact, and perhaps learning more of the pilots situation or intentions. It also provides the oppotunity, but not the obligation, to force down or shoot down the plane, if it becomes apparrent that it’s intentions are hostile. Interception itself, is not an agressive move. There are standardised signals, which are part of the aviation code, which an airforce pilot will give to a civillian airliner if radio contact is unavailable. When pilots are off course and disorientated, the fighter pilot will guide them back to the correct course. But the airforce also has a record of having previously forced down, or shot down civillian aircraft which were behaving in a manner which was considered to be a deliberate agressive flouting of aviation rules, likely to present a danger. While the end result of September 11, large commercial airliners flying into buildings, is unprecedented, the events leading up to the crashes are routine. Planes off course, transponders not working, reports of hijackings. Such events are handled regularly by the US airforce with expert efficiency. Normally, interception of these planes would have been well and truly in place, before it became apparrent that their intentions were hostile. What is unusual about September 11 , is that these normal airforce procedures, activated automatically, and without the need for high level authority simply didn’t happen. The routine proceedures were waived for every one of the planes involved.
The 4 hijacked planes were all being tracked on Federal Aviation Authority radar, and air traffic controllers across the country were in communication with each other. Since no junoir officer would have the authority to override the interception routines, the failure to activate them, can only have come from orders to that effect, from the very highest levels. In the case of the plane which struck the pentagon, United Airlines flight 77, It should have been intercepted, as it approached Washington, by fighters from Andrews airbase, a mere 10 miles from the pentagon. In fact in should have been intercepted a lot earlier than that. By 9.05 at the very latest, the Pentagon knew that two hijacked planes, had struck the world trade centre, and that at least one more hijacked plane was at large. It may not have been clear by this time, that flight 77 was headed to Washington, but it was clear that a terrorist attack of massive proportions was taking place, and that at least one more plane probably had intentions to strike somewhere. The fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground. By 9.25 at the very latest, it was clear that this plane was headed to Washington. The Andrews airbase fighters stayed on the ground, and whichever squadron was responsible for covering the area where the plane was originally hijacked, had also failed to activate. At 9.41, just 2 minutes before the plane struck the pentagon, two F16 fighters from Langley airbase, were dispatched to intercept it. Langley airbase is 130 miles away! They had no hope whatsoever of intercepting it. Meanwhile the fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground! The official story is that no fighters were available at Andrews that day. This is clearly a lie. The specific mandate of the fighters at Andrews airbase, is to protect Washington DC. And if none were available, how did they miraculously appear in the sky over Washinton DC, a few minutes after the Pentagon was hit? And do they seriously expect us to believe that the Pentagon is only defended on a part time basis? Another official story is that, they thought at the time, that the plane was targeting the White House. So what? Isn't that even more reason to have activated the airforce? And if that's what they thought, why was the White House, not evacuated until 2 minutes after the Pentagon crash? As far as I can make out the timetable, that's about 10 minutes after the plane would have flown past the target, which they allegedly thought it was heading to! Overall, 45 minutes passed between the time that Flight 77’s transponder was turned off, (which is when automatic interception proceedures should have begun, even on a normal day), and the time that it crashed into the pentagon. That there was no interception, is all the more incredible, given that at the the time it’s transponder was turned off, it was already 10 minutes since one hijacked airliner, United airlines flight 175, had crashed into the world trade centre, and about 5 minutes, since it had become known, that a third plane, American airlines flight 11, had been hijacked. At 9.03, flight 11, also hit the world trade centre, and still no movement at Andrews. By 9.25, there was no doubt that flight 77 was headed to Washington, and still no movement at Andrews, and no evacuation of either the Pentagon or White House. But the Andrews fighters got into the air, and the evacuation of the White House took place, just for show it would seem, immediately after flight 77 had completed it’s mission. So this plane, at a time when a security crisis of huge proportions was taking place, was able to turn off its transponder, change course, and fly 300 miles, being tracked by radar the whole way, without being intercepted. And then approach the nations capital, fly past the white house, and crash into the pentagon, without even being challenged. At 10.10, it was known that a fourth plane, United airlines flight 93 had been hijacked. This was also spared the normal practice of interception. It crashed in Pensalvania at 10.37. (Note: There is some discrepency between different information sources, about the exact times involved with this one, I will confirm the exact time in a further update, once I can establish it for certain.) It’s difficult to say exactly what the official stories are, concerning the failure to intercept the two planes which hit the WTC, because the stories keep changing, but it is has been admitted by Norad that it was alerted to a hijacking as early as 8.35, but didn’t activate any airforce action until after the pentagon was hit, while at the same time admitting that interception of civilian aircraft by jet fighters is a routine proceedure. Their story regarding flight 93 is that they could have shot it down if they had wanted to. This is most unconvincing. If they "could have shot it down", then why hadn't they at least gone through the routine proceedure of intercepting it and checking it out? They had 27 minutes to do so, and after all, there had already been 3 suicide crashes that morning. Exactly how were they going to shoot it down? With a plane which wasn't there? With a long range missile, when interception by fighters would have been far more safe, and would have also provided the possibility of forcing it down, and also given the oppotunity to check with greater certainty that that was the only option? And when were they going to shoot it down? How long were they going to wait? Vice president Cheney, in response to questioning about this bizarre scenario, has deliberately tried to confuse interception with shooting down, trying to create the impression, that the reason nothing was done, was because officials were agonizingly biting their nails, over whether to take the dramatic step of shooting down a plane full of innocent civillians. Cheny knows very well that interception, while giving the oppotunity to shoot down the plane, does not commit one to that action. And also, at the same time that Cheny is spinning this smokescreen, they're telling us that the only reason interception didn't happen in the case of flight 77, is because no fighters were available at Andrews. Make up your minds! And also, that in the case of flight 93, that they "could have shot it down" even though no interception had taken place, which could only be interpreted as meaning that they were prepared to use a missile. If that's the case why such agonising over the process of interception? And how does Cheney's statement reconcile, with Norad's admission that interception is a routine proceedure? There is no possible explanation for these events, and the extraordinarily garbled confusion of unconvincing cover up stories, except that to say that someone very high up in the Airforce or the Bush Administration was determined to nobble the air force and make sure that the attacks were successful. We will now turn our attention to the president, and demonstrate conclusivley that he was involved.
At 8.46, as the first plane hit the world trade centre, the President was at a Florida elementary school, mingling with teachers and children. It is curious to say the least, that 14 minutes later, at 9.00, it seems that no one had informed the president of the emergency which was unfolding across the nation. Not only had the world trade centre been hit, air traffic controllers were aware of at least one more hijacked plane at large, and may have been aware of 2 by this time. It must have also been apparent by this time that the air force was standing idly by, waiving normal proceedures of intervention. At 9.00, the president had settled down with second grade children, and was reading about a little girls’s pet goat. At 9.05, two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in his ear. According to reporters at the scene, the president "turned briefly sombre. " Others who claim to have seen footage of this event describe his reaction as more like a nod of confirmation to something which he had been expecting. It becomes even more unbelievable. The president did not react by leaving the school, convening an emergency meeting, and intervening to ensure that the airforce did it’s job. He did not even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued with the reading class, at the same time as, at 9.06, the NY police department was broadcasting "This was a terrorist attack.
Notify the Pentagon" (NY Daily News Sept 12). The situation, then, at 9.05, is that at least 3 planes have been hijacked this morning, and are known to be on terrorist suicide missions, two have already struck their targets, with spectacular effect, at least one is known to be still in the air, the airforce is doing nothing, and the President, who has apparently only just been informed, decides to continue reading to children about a little girl’s pet goat! He continued to read about pet goats for another 24 minutes! In an interview for newsweek, Bush recalls the moment he was told. "I'm the commander in chief, and the country had just come under attack." So why did he continue to find pet goats such a fascinating subject for the next 24 minutes? Doesn't this prove that at the very best, he's unfit to be in charge on matters of national security, and at the worst, indictable for treason?
By 9.30 the president had had enough of pet goats and decided that it might be time to say something about the terrorist attacks, but not to do anything about them. Rather than calling an emergency meeting, or taking direct command of the airforce, or at least demanding to know what the hell was going on with the airforce, he decided to stay at the school, and give a television address to the nation, to tell them what everybody already knew, that there had been an "apparrent terrorist attack". A totally useless response, a blatant evasion of his duty to do everything possible to take command of the situation, even at the same time as flight 77, known, more than half an hour ago to have been hijacked, had now reached Washington, being tracked by radar, and the Andrews fighters were still on the ground. Bush either didn't know, and didn't want to know, or knew but didn't care. By 9.35, as the president was wasting his time with the pointless address to the nation, the third plane was over Washington, had flown past the white house and, all the time being tracked by radar, done a 360 degree turn over the Pentagon, which is not being evacuated, even though staff there have already heard about the twin attacks on the World trade centre, and were already nervous about also being a target, even before this plane approached Washington.
Forty minutes after the pentagon crash, when it became known that, yet another plane, Flight 93 had been hijacked, this was also not intercepted, and the president again failed to intervene in the treacherous inaction of the airforce. He was clearly involved in active collusion to ensure that the attacks were a success. To suggest that such actions were simply a result of incompetence and confusion is not credible. But for those who wish to cling to this implausible explanation of incompetence, I now cross reference back to part 1, and the point about it not being credible that the USA could organise the attack on Afghanistan in a mere 25 days. If we are asked to believe that the USA military is so razor sharp, that it can execute an operation of this type within a time that defies what is known to be logistically possible, then how can we be simultaneously expected to believe that the same country is capable of such a staggering, inconceivable level of incompetence, in instituting routine domestic security measures? It allowed, without even a challenge, the success of an attack, which the commander in chief of the Russian airforce claims, should have been impossible to carry out. Was this blundering, useless, confused thing, called the US airforce, suddenly, in the space of 25 days, transformed into a lethal, efficient fighting force, that has reduced the Taliban to nothing, in impressively quick time? The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. To give any credence whatsoever to the posibilty that the highly successful, and well organised attack on Afghanistan was organised in 25 days, as a response to September 11, we must then, on the balance of the evidence, accept the events of September 11 as conclusive proof of collusion, which creates the thorny problem of why there was a retaliatory response to something which USA authorities were themselves involved in. Or alternatively, if we are to give any credence whatsoever to the possibility that the events of September 11 were innocent incompetence on a staggering scale, we must be highly suspicious, to say the least, that the attack on Afghanistan was already into an advanced stage of planning by Sept 11, in which case we are again asking ourselves to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened, by co-incidence,to take place at a time which could not have been more convenient, from a propaganda point of view, for the already planned war. Just the raw factsof what actually happened on the morning of September 11 are by themselves enough to conclusively prove that USA authorities were involved in collusion. But there is a deeper pattern to the evidence which hammers this home even harder.
The pattern that is emerging, so far, is that if we wish to believe that USA authorities are innocent of any involvement in September 11, and that the attack on Afghanistan is genuinely a response to the events of that day, we find ourselves, in every aspect so far examined, in the awkward position of having to continually choose, one after the other, the scenario which common sense tells us is the least likely, rather than the most, further complicated by a tangle of mutually exclusive scenarios, whereas, when we postulate the opposite theory, everything falls into place, as perfectly obvious events. In the light of this evidence, there appears to be no rational, objective basis why we should not be suggesting with some confidence that USA authorities were involved in September 11, and had pre planned the attack on Afghanistan. The only basis for refusing to do so, seems to be based on preconceived bias, rather than a genuine attempt to examine the evidence objectively. And if it is to be claimed that the evidence for collusion, is over-ruled by a belief that no country would do that to its own citizens, then it must be pointed out that the contemplation of terrorist attacks on US citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The previously classified "Northwoods" document demonstrates that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but the favoured option was the shooting down of a US civilian airliner. (http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm )
And there’s plenty more: The problem of the mutually exclusive scenarios regarding the competance, or lack of, concerning the US air force, repeats itself in relation to US intelligence services. How is it that they can have had no warning whatsoever of the largest, most difficult and complicated terrorist attack in the history of the world, but then be allegedly able to nail the culprit, almost beyond doubt, in less than a day, and beyond any doubt at all in 2 days? If they genuinely had no warning of the attack, then we can only assume that they are lying, when within 2 days, thay claim to be so confident of Bin Laden’s guilt, that they are already threatening to attack Afghanistan, in response. Or if they had some forwarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, if they were allegedly on the alertfor "something" from Bin Laden, then the inaction of the president and the airforce on the morning of Semptember 11 is confirmed even more conclusively, if that’s possible, as collusion rather than incompetence.
Strong supporting evidence for the allegation of forewarning and collusion, is presented by a curious aside to the Pentagon attack. The plane which flew into the Pentagon, had it done so a week earlier, would have flown into exactly the right spot to cripple the Pentagon’s key operations and kill many important senior staff. But, allegedly by fortunate co-incidence, the Pentagon had done a major reshuffle just a week before. (Source, CNN TV report on the morning of Sept 12, Australian time) All the important people and operations had moved to other side, and the unimportant people and operations had moved to the side which was hit. Very little real damage was done to the important operations of the pentagon. They swapped sides a week before the attack! This is powerful evidence that someone very high up in the Pentagon knew that the attack was coming. Once again, to postulate otherwise means choosing the least likely explanation on the basis of a preconceived conclusion. How many times are we prepared to do that?
Now, we turn in detail, to the totally unsubstantiated allegations against Osama Bin Laden:
Remember that from day 1, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. We had, in fact, up until mid December, nothing but the continued repetition of his name, as if by repeating something often enough, we can somehow make it true.
Then came the video tape, which, is a complete joke. This is an age of technology where film of crystal clear quality can show Forest Gump shaking hands with JFK, where simulated cyclones can be animated into a movie set, where dinasours, extinct for 200 million years can be shown so clearly, that you would swear they were there. All this is done with such startling reality, that the only way we know it’s not true is that we have pre-existing knowledge that it’s a fake.
By comparison, the video tape of Bin Laden, is of such poor quality that we have no way of even knowing for sure whether it’s actually him on the tape. In feature movies of top quality, it is common practice to use a stand-in to replace the real actor for much of the filming. An extra of similar hight and build, is given the same clothing and hair style, and the two are virtually indistinguisable. Such a substitution would be even easier on a poor quality video. And when the main charachter has a long beard, a headress, and loose clothing, it's an absolute snap. On the Bin Laden tape, the poor quality prevents any analysis of whether the dialogue is genuinely live, or overdubbed. We also have had to rely on translations of dubious independence. The timeline of when and where the tape was allegedly made, and where it was allegedly found is also, although possible, somewhat perplexing.
Allegedly, it was made in Kandahar on November 9, and found in a house in Jalalbad. Jalalabad fell to anti-taliban forces on November 14. This means that there was only 4 days in which the newly made tape could have been taken from Kandahar to Jalalabad, which was already under fierce seige and serious threat by then. So, we are asked to believe that upon making the tape, someone almost immediately, for no apparrent reason, took it to Jalalbad, which was about to fall, and then conveniently left it there, to be found by anti taliban forces. It’s not impossible, but it does have the strong smell of a set up. Also, according to the Weekend Australian of Dec 15/16, the sequence of real time events had been reversed on the tape. This means it must have been edited. Why, and by whom? (A question not examineed by the press of course, although I suppose we should be grateful that at least it was reported.) Also, did the date stamp of Nov 9, as reported on television, refer to the date of the filming, or the date that the edited version was finalised? If it was the former, which would seem to be more likely, then this leaves even less time for it to have been taken from the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar to Jalalabad, which was on the point of being overrun. It's highly supicious. Or was it edited by US authorities? They've been forced to admit that the "translation" they've released is doctored. Of course they don't state it in those terms but try to cloud it in euphemisms. "The tape is NOT a verbatim translation of every word spoken during the meeting, but it does convey the messages and the information flow" says a department of defense spokesman. "The translation is what it is. We made it very clear that it's not a literal translation" says the pentagon. But will the pentagon work at a more complete translation? No. Will the full transcript be released to the public? No.
(http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/story_23359.asp )
To be objective, none of this proves that the tape is a fake, but equally, it’s authenticity can hardly be claimed as proven either. And even if it is genuine, we've been given a selectively edited version of it. If this is the only evidence against Bin Laden, then the case is in an awful lot of trouble. And what other evidence is there?
It’s no surprise, therefore that no formal charges have been laid against Bin Laden. The normal practice of the law is that it’s neccesary to actually have evidence, in order to lay charges.
The irony, is that if the tape is genuine, it only serves to prove that Bin Laden was NOT the mastermind behind the attacks. While it would indicate that he had some prior knowledge of it, and was therefore, by definition involved in some capacity, he clearly states (if we accept the tape as clearly stating anything) that he was told about the impending the attack 5 days before it happened. If that’s the case, he can’t possibly have been the main organiser. Who told him about it? Presumably the person(s) who actually organised it, still unknown, but definitely not Bin Laden. In all the frenzied outrage against Bin Laden that this convenient tape has engendered, it seems that very few people have actually viewed the tape carefully enough to ask the important question that flows from Bin Laden’s admission to have been told about the attack 5 days in advance. Who actually organised it?
Tape or no tape, if we think clearly and logically about the likelihood of Bin Laden being involved, we actually find that it’s impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US authorities, or at best, in the context of the USA knowing all along what he was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has already been made about the ridiculously short span of time which passed, before Bin Laden was pronounced guilty, and the fact that this sets up mutually exclusive scenarios. If he was involved, then it can’t have been a surprise, which in turn proves beyond any doubt that the inaction of the airforce and the president on September 11 was collusion, rather than incompetence. But the evidence doesn’t end there. It is curious to say the least, that no other suspect was ever even contemplated, however briefly (even though the US has plenty of enemies.) This becomes downright suspicious if we think clearly about the logistics of actually setting up a real inquiry into the events of September 11. Firstly, let’s put it in context. It took 17 years to catch the unabomber, and it took 7 weeks of investigation into September 11 merely to confirm the nationalities of the 19 alleged hijackers, while the person who masterminded the whole thing was allegedly known within a few hours. I don’t think so!
Now, imagine that we’re actually trying to set up an inquiry into September 11 in the first minutes after the attack, while the dust is still settling. And it would have had to have been literally, in the first minutes, because they claim to have had him nailed within a few hours. Who did this terrible thing? While a list of suspects might spring to mind, it’s not as if we could walk outside and see the letters "Bin Laden" written in clouds up in the sky. Was not Saddam Hussein also a suspect? Libya? A Palestinian group? Cuba? Russia? China? Local right wing militias? Anti-globalisation fanatics? Syria? Someone completely unknown and unexpected? etc etc. The list of possibilites which would spring to mind would be huge. Bin Laden would have only been one of these. Where do we start, in setting up such an inquiry? Firstly, we obviously need to recruit people with aviation expertise to the inquiry. But they must also be people with appropriate security clearances. Start drawing up a list of possible people who might be useful in this context. We need people with architectural expertise, to examine the exact nature of the collapse of the world trade centre. Was it only the planes which caused the collapse, or were explosives also used? Again start making a list. We need people who’s main field is airport security. Did someone in the airports deliberately let the hijackers through? Start drawing up a list. We need people with financial expertise to try to trace where some of the considerable funds needed for this operation came from. Start drawing up a list. We need to examine immigration records and cross reference these with the granting of pilot’s licences. We need an urgent review of internal security, in case it was an "inside job. " Such a review is a delicate operation to say the least.
As you can see, it’s quite a task, simply to start drawing up the lists of possible suspects, possible personnel for the inquiry, and the main angles of investigation for the inquiry.
Then all of these people have to contacted, and gotten together in a group, or at least hooked up with communications to each other. But hang on! Aircraft are grounded. Even the president's having trouble getting around. Many communication networks are down, many financial instutions closed, and large parts of New York and Washington are inaccessible. And the whole country's crawling with security blockades. How do we get hold of the people we want? How do we get them all together, and start delegating responsibilities? Did they all miraculously happen to have been hanging out together, in the one place, which was also the place where the inquiry co-ordinater was hanging out, so there was no need to wait till people could get back from other assignments, in various parts of the US, or overseas?
To have even drawn up a list of possible suspects, prospective personnel, and basic strategies for the inquiry, within 2 days, would have been an astonishing, perhaps impossible task, under these circumstances. To have actually held a meeting of the senior agents to be involved in the inquiry, within less than 3 days would probably have been impossible. And yet, by this time, the US had already claimed to have held it’s "inquiry" , and established Bin Laden’s guilt. How? Was anything, ever, more obviously, a set up?
And then, once the basic parameters of the inquiry were established, and the nuts and bolts of the everyday research and investigation were begun, in however many weeks it would have taken to get to that stage, it’s not as if all the inquiry personnel just sit around and say "what do we think? Bin Laden?" and everyone says "yeah", so the team leader phones the president and says "Bin Laden" and the president says "that’s good enough for me" and immediately threatens to attack Afghanistan. Extensive field work, and computer work would have to be done. The reports would have to be written up, summarised, checked for security clearances, printed, and given to the president and his top advisers, who would have to read at least the summaries, and then discuss them with the invetsigation panel. And allthis was done in less than 12 hours, in a country which was in chaos and confusion at the time? This is one of the most preposterous suggestions of this whole affair.
And even in the unlikely event that any evidence whatsoever, could have been gathered in this time, it’s one thing to start to focus on a main suspect and feel that you may be getting close to a conclusion, but it’s another altogether to be so certain that you’re threatening a war over it. It simply isn’t possible. And even if it was, it again sets up the mutually exclusive scenario, of how someone could have organised such a huge operation in total secrecy, such that it took authorities completely by surprise, but at the same time have left his "fingerprints everywhere", evidence lying around in copious quantities, to the extent that guilt was obvious within a few hours, even under the difficult circumstances that Amercia found itself in, for several days after the attack.
Tony Blair confirmed that this whole thing is a lie, with a careless statement made at the beginning of November in response to polls showing that support for the war was falling in Britain. He said. "There is no doubt about Bin Laden’s guilt. The evidence against him, first a trickle, then a flow, has now become a torrent. " (World news page on nine MSN website)This statement was made nearly two months after Septemeber 11. The key words are "trickle", "flow" "now" and "torrent". Since they were already procaliaming Bin Laden almost certainly guilty, within a few hours, Blair is inadverdently admitting that it was a lie. Did the evidence progess from "trickle"to "flow" to "torrent" all in a few hours? This would seem a very strange way to describe such a process, especially, when the phrase was not employed until nearly two months later, and was described as "has NOW become a torrent. " So, he is inadverdantly admitting that they were already declaring Bin Laden guilty, and threatening Afghanistan, at a time when the evidence was still only a "trickle". His words after all, not mine!(They somehow knew at the time that it would become a "torrent" "later?) But a "torrent" of evidence is apparently still not sufficient to lay any formal charges, or release any of this "torrent" to the public?
An important question remains to be cleared up. The pilots were obviously on a suicide mission, which is known to be a common theme amongst Middle Eastern, Islamic terrorists, but totally foreign to American culture. It is difficult to believe that Americans, or those loyal to the US would knowingly participate in a suicide mission. But this doesn’t present any real problem for the scenario which has been postulated. The obvious explanation is that some of the hijackers were genuinely hostile to the USA, and were participating in an attack which they thought would damage the US, unaware that they were pawns in a double play, and were part of a larger CIA plan. In fact, in late November, media reports began to emerge, that some of the hijackers may not have been aware that they were about to participate in a suicide mission. I don’t know how this evidence has emerged, or what the basis of it is, but that’s what’s been reported. (ABC Newsradio report) This would fit very neatly with the rest of the information we have. Some of those who were not aware that they would be committing suicide, would have been the CIA operatives, probably ordered to set up the terrorists and take part in the hijacking, while being kept in the dark about the full extentof the plans, while those who were knowingly committing suicide, were those genuinely hostile to the USA. (If this is the case, the final moments of the black box flight recorder data, would make interesting listening, to say the least. Is this why it’s being kept so quiet?).
It is clear that this could not have been organised without the use of pawns, who thought that they were about to strike a blow against the US. This is where Bin Laden fits in. He deceived and sacrificed his own people in the same way that the Americans involved, deceived and sacrificed their's. The evidence that Bin Laden and the CIA are in active co-operation in this atrocity will become clearer in part 3. This might also explain the otherwise incomprensible scenario of Bin Laden producing an incriminating video tape, and then immediately taking it to a place where it was sure to fall into American hands.
PART 3
In fact, there is plenty of evidence to implicate Bin Laden, but the problem is that it also implicates the Bush Administration, the CIA , George Bush senior, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates. The official story about Bin Laden is that of terrorist monster, with a fanatical hatred of the USA and it’s allies, and as being estranged from the rest of his wealthy Saudi family, who are friendly to the USA. The terrorist monster part is correct, but the rest of it could not be further from the truth.
Bin Laden is well known as being a CIA operative. He had a close working relationship with the CIA in the 1980’s. This isn’t denied by anyone. The claim is that they have since fallen out, but this story is a lie.
For a start, many of the US military installations in the Middle east, to which Bin Laden allegedly has a violent objection, were actually built by Bin Laden’s construction company. There is a continuous history of close business ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, stretching back more than a decade, and continuing to this day. (Wall Street Journal Sept 27 2001 and www.thedubyareport.com/bushbin.html ) The Bush Administration has attempted to throw a smokescreen over this by claiming that the rest of Bin Laden's family has disowned him, but as we shall see, this isn't true. The Bin Ladens are significant investors in the huge arms dealing firm Carlyle group which, by it’s own boast, stands to make a lot of money from the Afghanistan war. George Bush senior is a significant figure in Carlyle group. Other major investors, or senior executives include ex British PM, John Major, James A Baker, who was secretary of defence, under President Bush Sr., Colin Powell, and former secretary of defence and deputy CIA director Frank Carlucci, who is a former college classmate of current defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A quote from Carlyle's company profile at hoover's online.
"Carlyle's directorship reads like George W Bush's inaugural ball invite list. " "Can you say military-industrial complex? The Carlyle goup can. " (www.hoovers.com/premium/profile/6/0,2147,42166,00.html )
Neither can it be claimed that Bush senior was unaware of the Bin Laden’s shareholding. He has met the Bin Laden family at least twice, in 1998 and in 2000, long after Bin Laden had already been officially declared by the USA as the most wanted man in the world, for alleged terrorist activities. Why was George Bush Sr. meeting with this man's family, when the official story was that the Clinton administration had already declared its determination to eliminate Al Qaida and Bin Laden at any cost and by any means neccesary?
In 1995, US authorities named Bin Laden as a co-conspiritor in the 1993, WTC bombing. But a year after this accusation, when the Sudanese government had Bin Laden in custody and offered to extradite him to the US, the US govenement said it was not interested and told the Sudanese government to let him go to Afghanistan. Since then, the US government has declared Bin Laden as the main suspect in terrorist attacks on two US embassies, and for attacks against a US warship and a US military barracks in the the Middle East (one of those which Bin Laden’s construction company helped to build). And yet he was allowed to invest, via his family, in Carlyle group and George Bush senior was meeting with his family as recently as 2000. It is a lie that Bin Laden is estranged from his family. Bin Laden is known to have talked regularly with his mother and with other family members during this time of alleged estragement. In fact when Bin Laden was hospitalised in Dubai, in July 2001, he is known to have been visited by family members. And what was the most wanted terrorist in the world doing in a Dubai hospital anyway? Why wasn’t he immediately arrested, instead of being given hospital treatment, and then allowed to go free? During this hospitalisation, he was also allegedly visited by the local CIA agent, and by several prominent Saudis and Emiratis, also US allies. (Le Figero Nov 1, 2001)
Furthermore, Bin Laden’s Al Qaida network, is known to have fought alongside Nato forces, in the Kosovo liberation army, a terrorist group supported by the CIA.
( www.thedubyareport.com/terrupdt.html and www.emperors clothes.com/news/binl.htm)
It is no co-incidence that the Australian, David Hicks, who has been arrested for fighting for the Taliban, has fought for Al Qaida in both the Kosovo Liberation army, and the Taliban. So it appears that Bin Laden’s Al Qaida is our enemy in Afghanistan, but our ally in Yugoslavia. Apparently, Al Qaida is a liberation force in Yugoslavia, but a terrorist group everywhere else. Furthermore, Pakistan, another of our allies in the "war against terror" has also long been a supporter of Al Qaida, and it is no coincidence that David Hicks also received training in Pakistan. And we already know that Sept 11 was at least partially funded by a Pakistani sheik, highly placed in the Pakistan secret service. He has not been indicted or even pursued. Given that it was known that Bin Laden’s family visited him in hospital in Dubai, it is curious that the Bush admistration and the media continue with the lie that he is estranged from his family. While this may be merely curious, it is scandalous that several members of the Bin Laden family were in the US on September 11, and were allowed to leave a few days later, without any questioning, given that the US had already declared Bin Laden guilty without trial (or even charge).
The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qaida, and has expressed frustration at the apparrent refusal to allow it to fully investigate the events of September 11.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm )
It will be no surprise if Bin Laden miraculously escapes to another country, giving the US the excuse to attack there. At the time of writing an update to this, (Dec 20 2001), my guess is Iran. Let's see if I'm right.
PART 4
Some miscellaneous peices of information, and observations, which contribute to the scenario outlined above. Normally, whenever an airplane is hijacked or crashes, there is extensive media coverage given to the recovery and examination of the black box flight recorders. I have followed this issue closely in the media, and do not recall at any stage, hearing even one word spoken about the black box data. This is highly unusual. Is this information being censored? A possible reason for this has already been alluded to.
In the first few hours after the attacks, there were immediately reports on CNN about insider trading on the New York stock exchange. That is, it seems that some very large investors had known in advance of the attacks and sold off before hand. There was media speculation that the terrorists involved, may have profited from their actions. For "terrorists", subsitute, "Bin Laden". Within a few hours, the media was already into an unquestioning hysteria of Bin Laden bashing. Bin Laden must have been insider trading, we were told. A tautological loop had already been established. Whoever had done the terrorist attacks had been insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had done the attacks, then it must have been Bin Laden who was insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had been insider trading, that proved he did the attacks. We were assuured that invstigators were already hot on the trail of this vital question. The figures on the New York stock exchange do seem to clearly indicate that SOMEONE was insider trading. But who? For authorities with full investigative powers, this should be one of the easier aspects of the investigation. And if it could be found who was insider trading, that gives us a good idea about who knew about the terrorist attacks before hand, which gives us a pretty good idea about who did it. Is is curious then, that this issue dissappeared from the media, almost as soon as it was raised, and was never heard of again, the bold promises that investigators were on to it -- forgotten as soon as they had been made. Surely, this would be the chance to nail Bin Laden’s guilt. And it is information which could be released publicly, because it would not have security implications. And yet this aspect of the investigation (if it is still proceeding at all) is being kept very quiet. One can only assume, that it began to turn up answers which US authorities did not want anyone to know. Given what we know about the close business relationship of the Bush and Bin Laden families, this is hardly surprising.
However, one financial fact which is known, is that a convicted Pakistani terrorist, highly placed in the Pakistani secret service (our allies in the "war against terror") wired $100,000 to Mahomed Atta, named as the leader of the Sept 11 group, shortly before September 11. (ABC Newsradio report)Although this fact is known, and publicly available, the USA is quite uninterested in pursuing any action against this person, in spite of President Bush’s huffing and puffing that "if you fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist." Not in the case of our allies, it seems. The Sheik was forced to resign his position, once his involvement in September 11 became known. Forced to resign? No retaliatory bombing of Pakistan until they hand him over? No labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist state? On the contrary, the USA is becoming quite cozy with the only country in the world (apart from itself), against whom there is incontravertible evidence of having been involved in September 11. The USA has been prepared to pound Afghanistan into the ground, despite having not a shred of evidence against Bin Laden, while showing a total lack of interest, in pursuing an individual whose complicity in September 11 has become a matter of public record, not denied by anyone. The US is also totally uninterested in pursuing the country which harbours him. In fact it considers that country to be a close ally in the war AGAINST terrorism!
On reflection, it is also curious how little real damage was done to the USA, by the September 11 attacks. It is worth reflecting on what probably could have been achieved by the hijackers, had they really wanted to do the maximum possible damage. It seems to me that a plan to organise the hijacking at such a time that they could have crashed a plane into the senate or congress while it was sitting, thus wiping out a significant part of the USA’s government in one hit, could have been just as easily achieved, as what they actually did on Sept 11. Or crashing the planes into a nuclear power plant, causing a catastrophic meltdown and release of radiation, as well as serious disruption to power supplies. It is not credible to suggest that these plans were not carried out, because they thought the security would be too tight, considering that they were confident enough to go for the Pentagon.
In the final analysis, in spite of all the shock, horror, and grief caused by September 11, not one member of the US administration was killed, or injured, not even a single senator, congress member, or governor, or any local official. No damage was done to military capability, and no damage to power, trasnsport, communication or water supplies. In fact, the damage was so trivial, that the US was (allegedly) able to organise a war in record time, despite having had a plane crashed into the pentagon. (Funny about how that reshuffle a week before, meant that the Pentagon was able to get on with business, almost unhampered!) While the loss of (civillian) lives, and the symbolic and psychological damage to general public was enormous, in the larger scheme things, the attacks, while giving the US a huge propaganda weapon, made zero impact upon the USA’s ability to continue its role as an aggressive world superpower. This would seem to be an extraordinarily poor return, considering the near technical perfection of the operation, whenthe damage could have been devestating, simply by choosing the targets more sensibly.
IMPLICATIONS
It needs to be realised that the war in South Asia is more than just a continuation of US foreign policies which are estimated by disgruntled ex-CIA personal to have murdered (as of 1990) a minimum of 6 million civilians around the world, in covert CIA operations, over the previous 30 years, and to have , at any one time, been sponsoring terrorist organisations in around 50 countries. ("The Praetorian Guard" by John Stockwell). Up until now, people in the West have been safe. The game has now changed. Not only have they randomly murdered thousands of their own citizens, for the purpose of unleashing a new intensity in the wave of terrorism against people in South-Asia and the Middle East, but they are using those very same murders as a lever to reduce the rights and freedom of speech in the west, to levels not seen since the fascist era.
Consider the following domestic developments since September 11.
In the USA: Laws for indefinite detention without trial, charge or evidence, laws which any Third World dictator would be proud of. Unlimited power to monitor and freeze finances. Unlimited power to monitor and intercept email and internet traffic. Hugely increased funding for covert law enforcement agencies, as well as sweeping new powers of arrest, surveillance and telephone tapping. "Terrorist" organisations to be defined according to political belief not according to any evidence that they are prepared to use terrorism. My understanding is that anti-globalisation activists, such as Naomi Klein, can now be classified as terrorists under the new laws. I have been told that the president of the American Greens party is now banned from air travel. Foreigners accused of terrorism to be tried in military, rather than civilian courts, with no public scrutiny of the trial, and no right of appeal, and the power to monitor conversations between the accused and their solicitors. (That’s if they even get a trial)
In Britain: Tony Blair has attempted to introduce similar laws. The House of Lords has frustrated some of them, but nevertheless sweeping rollbacks of civil liberties have been acheived. A senior member of the British cabinet recently described civil liberties as an "airy fairy thing of the past, in the post-September 11 world. "In Australia: laws for 48 hours detention of anyone, without legal representation, even if they are not suspected of terrorism, but may have information which might be useful. At the time of writing this, it had been recently announced that the Australian government will shortly freeze the finances of 200 individuals and organizations, decreed by the US PRESIDENT as being supporters of terrorism. My understanding is that there will be no charges, evidence, trial or right of appeal. In the west now, anybody who is accused of terrorism, automatically loses all civil rights, and anybody can be arbitarily accused.
All of this would be scary enough, even if it were genuinely an over-reaction to an act of foreign terrorism. When you realise that these laws are being drawn up by the same people who actually organised the act of terrorism which triggered it, the scenario is truly chilling.
And on the subject of the USA president, it should be noted that for the first time ever, the man who won the US election was not appointed President, while the man who LOST it, was. When this is added to the extraordinary resources which were poured into George W Bush’s Republican nomination push, against other candidates, who were far better qualified to take on Gore, followed by an election which was clearly rigged, it becomes obvious that George W Bush was always going to be president, no matter what. It is therefore clear that this plan goes back well before November 2000. Whether or not the September 11 atrocities had been specifically planned by then, I can’t say, but it’s clear that the wider agenda had been. Note that the current, unelected president is the son of a man who is a major shareholder in the huge arms corporation Carlyle group, which is set to profit from this war, the same man who is an ex-director of the CIA which helped to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the same man who was meeting with Osama Bin Laden's (not estranged) family, presumably for business purposes, as recently as 2000. The scandalous aspect here, is that the President is the presumed heir to a fortune being amassed on the back of this war, and it would appear that the alleged target of the war is also set to make a tidy profit. Along with the secretary of state. A conflict, scripted by the protaganists, where they are the only people who don’t get hurt.
WHY?
The profit motivation for Carlyle group has been mentioned . In fact Donald Rumsfeld, is already telling European countries that they need to boost defence budgets. I'll bet that Carlyle group, and Rumsfeld's old buddy, the chairman of the company, will get a tidy share of it. Colin Powell appears to have the snout in the trough as well, unless he's severed all his former ties with Carlyle group and disposed of his shareholding, in which case I apologise. Can someone find out if this is the case? The president's father will certainly be making a lot of money, out of increased European defence budgets. (Incidently, Bush senior's grandfather was also an arms dealer, and didn't mind doing business with the Nazis.)
(http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm )
But the wider agenda is the pursuit of the huge unexploited reserves of oil and gas under the Caspian sea. They are currently owned by Russia and Iran, I would suggest, not for much longer if the USA has it’s way. It has been US policy since at least 1996, that a pipeline to carry this gas and oil to the Indian ocean, for transport to the West, must be built through Afghanistan. Whoever controls Afghanistan, controls the Caspian sea reserves. For years now, US covert foreign policy has been to sponsor terrorist organisations in the south of the former Soviet Union, in order to nibble away the area of Russian territory which borders the Caspian sea, and Afghanistan. This process is now almost complete with breakaway governments having been succesfully formed in Kazakshtan, Turkemenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Krygyzstan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Only the the area to the north of the last two, now needs to be broken off, for Russia to lose it’s territorial rights to the Caspian Sea. Please note that I have no problem, in principle with local regional governments being formed to free people from the hegemeony of large powers such as Russia, but the reality is that the local breakaway movements, which may have been genuine in their origin, have been distorted into self-interested terrorist movements by covert CIA action, and the new autonomous countries will now simply become subject to US hegemony, rather than Russian, and rather than being genuine expressions of local culture, identity and self determination, will be dominated by local tyrants and terrorists doing corrupt deals for the sake of their own power. The US is more than happy to talk business, in fact that’s the whole idea of setting up these local tyrants. Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, at the time, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, proudly described his policy achievements in Afghanistan, in the following terms:
The USA, by stirring up local uprisings, did everything possible to goad the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, and once it had achieved this, then backed the other side (The Taliban). This had a twofold purpose. It wasted Soviet resources in a long war of attrition, which they couldn’t win, and it destabilised a part of the world which was strategically important, to theUSA
Some direct quotes from Brzezinski:
"We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. "
"Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to president Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR it’s Vietnam war."
(http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm)
So, the 20-year civil war which has ravaged Afghanistan, and caused such apalling death, poverty and misery, was a deliberate policy on the part of the USA, who backed the Taliban all the way through, and is now giving them, their final "reward. " Furthermore, the last quote from Brzezenski is a tacit admission that much of the antagonism towards the West, amongst Muslims, was deliberately engineered by the US, as part of its destabilisation plans for the Middle East and South Asia. I won't go into this, any further, but considerable coverage is given to this aspect of the history, at the first website referred to, at the end of this document. This US plan is so far-reaching that they may find it neccesary to pound the whole of South Asia into the ground, in order to achieve it. One way or another, they must control all of the aforementioned countries, as well as Iran and Pakistan. Some are likley to cave in out of a combination of intimidation and bribery, as is so far the case in Pakistan. Others mayneed to be attacked. The September 11 events gave the USA a blank cheque to attack any country in the world, simply by uttering the word "terrorist". The three latest countries(at the time of writing this) to be named as targets in the war against terror, are Yemen, Somalia and Sudan, three countries we’ve heard very little about, previously, in relation to terrorism. But surpise, surprise, one only needs to glance at a map of the world, to see their strategic significance. Somalia and Yemen, between them, form both sides of the mouth of the gulf of Aden, which is the entrance to the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal, and therefore, the shortest route, between Europe, and the Indian ocean, where it borders South Asia. Control of these countries, by the US would also place extra pressure on Saudi Arabia, and Eygpt to continue with US-friendly policies. Sudan forms most of the southern edge of the Red Sea. Iraq is strategic because it borders Iran on the west. The September 11 attacks also give the US and allies such as Britain, a blank cheque to roll back civil liberties to the extent that any of their own citizens, who might make a fuss, can be silenced, simply by uttering the word "terrorist". It also places extreme pressure on other allies, such as Australia to do the same. Presumably, they remember the bitter lesson they learned about the power of domestic opposition, during the Vietnam war. When President Bush said "You are with us or against us," it was a thinly veiled warning to every other country in the world, including Australia, that unless the US recieves absolute unquestioning obedience, anybody is fair game.
Doubtless, all world leaders, including Australia’s, have heard the message loud and clear. It would also appear that the ALP heard it loud and clear. During the election campaign, Kim Beazley was falling over himself, to make it clear that an ALP government would obey the US totally, and without question. His motivation may well have been more than simply oppotunistic electoral popularity. The USA’s actions in Afghanistan, are not only directly stategic, they are delivering a stark warning to every other country in the world, that they must be obeyed.
SOURCES
Anything which I've neglected to directly reference, can be found with full referencing on the web sites mentioned below, except for some things which were heard on the radio. Where possible, I've tried to write down at least some clues for these, so that a persistent searcher may be able to find them in Archives. This is not designed to be a serious academic work, with academic credentials. It’s designed to expose the truth. Those who wishto do the work to verify this information, in an academically acceptable format, will find it easy enough to do so. While the case does pivot around a number of key facts, a lot of it is also common-sense interpretation, of general knowledge. The Bush administration has left a huge trail of evidence about September 11. The main reason that it has not become obvious to the majority of people yet is, apart from the obvious influence of the media, that everyone has been too shocked by the speed and brutality of the events to think clearly. For myself, it took about 2 weeks for the shock to begin to wear off sufficiently, for things that should have been obvious at the time, to become so. Once the initial breakthrough is made, in this regard, the inconsistancies and implausible explanations begin to develop from a "trickle" to a "flow to a "torrent".
For example, this cracker was reported on the ninemsn website on Nov 28. An article saying that US officials had received information that Bin Laden may be planning a major terrorist attack on US energy facilities, in particular gas pipelines. However, the very same article reported that the "noose around Bin Laden’s neck" had tightened, to the point that he was pinned down to a 30 km2 area, running for his life, constantly on the move, in a desperate bid to avoid death or capture. Pardon me, but exactly how does anyone launch a sophisticated terrorist operation against targets on the other side of the world from this position? Only people in a deep state of shock could fail to see that this is a ridiculous lie. And the next day it was reported that he "may" have chemical or nuclear weapons (although they admitted, late in the article of course, that they didn’t actually have any evidence of this at all). So this man, allegedly desperately on the run, is carrying truckloads of intercontinental missiles and missile launchers, constantly between cave and cave? And they’re not being picked up by US spy sattelites, which we were earlier told could detect the faintest trace of heat in a cave where he may be hiding? Or does he have some sophisticated radio network, sending out instructions to supporters, to launch attacks from safe undisclosed locations? Signals which his supporters can pick up, from somewhere far away, not under US control, but somehow can’t be picked up by the US and British forces which have him surrounded, like a "noose around the neck"? The lies and inconsistencies in this campaign are so obvious, that I suspect that those behind it are going to need a sophisticated strategy of continuing to keep people in a state of constant shock, fear and confusion, otherwise the obvious truth will come out. The anthrax campaign springs to mind. And the continual false alarms about renewed attacks from Bin Laden (remember the golden gate bridge false alarm!), and continual, totally unsubstantiated rumour-mongering about nuclear or biological attacks. Soon there will be attacks on other countries, along with a torrent of propaganda about the terrorist threats from whatever villain is identified as the latest evil murderer, who must be hunted down at any cost. Perhaps Bin Laden has now outlived his usefulness and will now be killed, although it is more likely that he will conveniently escape to another country, giving the perfect excuse for the US attack there.
This will all add to the confusion, the fear, the distraction. The ball must be kept rolling at any cost. If neccesary, they can always launch more terrorist attacks against their own people, to renew the shock and fear. After all, they are playing for the highest possible stakes. Not only what they stand to gain, which was their original motive, but now, given what they’ve done, Bush senior, Bush junior, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and probably quite a few others, all face the possibility of charges of treason and murder and would almost certainly face death penalties.
I’m not sure what can be done, but the first step, is that people must know the truth.
MUCH DETAILED INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT CAN BE FOUND AT
www.emperors-clothes.com/ add your own comments
stevegreyau@yahoo.co.uk
______________________________________________________
January 2002
The strange case of Zacarias Moussaoui: FBI refused to investigate man charged in September 11 attacks
By Patrick Martin, 5 January 2002
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/mous-j05.shtml
The case of Zacarias Moussaoui raises many questions about the conduct of the FBI and other US intelligence agencies in the period leading up the September 11. It is the clearest example of the almost inexplicable refusal on the part of these agencies to take any action that could have prevented the bloodiest terrorist attack in American history.
Moussaoui was arraigned January 3 on six counts of conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism in the September 11 attacks. A French-born man of Moroccan Arab descent, Moussaoui refused in the name of Allah to make a plea, and a plea of not guilty was entered for him at the request of his public defender.
The 30-minute hearing in a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia concluded with US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema setting a trial date for next October, despite defense protests that this would put jury selection around the first anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Defense lawyers suggested they would seek a change of venue from Alexandria, only a few miles from the Pentagon where 189 people were killed when a hijacked American Airlines jet slammed into the building on September 11. Brinkema indicated that she was not inclined to grant a change of venue, saying that a fair jury could be found in northern Virginia.
Four of the six charges against Moussaoui carry the death penalty, although he was arrested a month before the September 11 attacks and therefore could not have played any active role in the mass murder. Prosecutors have until March 29 to announce whether they will seek death sentences. Moussaoui would be the first French citizen to face the death penalty in the United States since the US Supreme Court restored the death penalty in 1976.
FBI refusal to act
Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota August 16 after officials of a flight school, the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, a suburb of Minneapolis, tipped off the FBI that he was seeking flight training on a Boeing 747 jumbo jet.
His conduct aroused suspicion: his attitude was belligerent, he was evasive about his personal background, he declined to speak French with an instructor who knew the language, and he paid the $6,300 fee in cash. He insisted on training to fly a jumbo jet despite an obvious lack of skill even with small planes. The prospective student reportedly did not want to learn how to take off or land, only how to steer the jet while it was in the air.
The instructor and a vice president of the flight school briefed two Democratic congressmen from the Minneapolis area in November about their repeated efforts to get the FBI to take an interest in Moussaouis conduct. Their accounts were first reported in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, then in the New York Times December 22.
The vice president of the flight school, who briefed Minnesota Congressmen James Oberstar and Martin Sabo, said it took four to six phone calls to the FBI to find an agent who would help. The instructor became so frustrated by the lack of response that he gave a prescient warning to the FBI that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb.
Investigation blocked in Washington.
Moussaoui was detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on charges of violating the terms of his visa. Local FBI investigators in Minneapolis immediately viewed Moussaoui as a terrorist suspect and sought authorization for a special counterintelligence surveillance warrant to search the hard drive of his home computer. This was rejected by higher-level officials in Washington, who claimed there was insufficient evidence to meet the legal requirements for the warrant.
FBI agents tracked Moussaouis movements to the Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, where he logged 57 hours of flight time earlier in 2001 but was never allowed to fly on his own because of his poor skills. This alone should have set off alarm bells, since a confessed Al Qaeda operative, Abdul Hakim Murad, had trained at the same school, as part of preparations for a suicide hijack attack on CIA headquarters. Murad testified about these plans in the 1996 trial of Ramzi Ahmed Yusef, the principal organizer of the 1993 World Trade Center car-bombing.
Several of the September 11 hijackers had either enrolled in or visited the Oklahoma flight school, as a more thorough investigation determined in the aftermath of the suicide hijackings.
On August 26, FBI headquarters was notified by French intelligence that Moussaoui had ties to the Al Qaeda organization and Osama bin Laden. Even this report did not spur the agency to action. A special counterterrorism panel of the FBI and CIA reviewed the information against him, but concluded there was insufficient evidence that he represented any threat, despite his refusal to answer questions and the French allegations. Moussaoui was not even transferred from INS detention to FBI custody until after September 11.
The French warning arrived on the day after the first two suicide hijackers purchased their one-way, first class tickets for flights on September 11. More tickets were purchased on August 26, 27, 28 and 29, while the FBI was refusing to pursue a more intensive investigation into Moussaoui or search his computer.
The New York Times commented December 22 that the Moussaoui case raised new questions about why the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies did not prevent the hijackings.
FBI officials responded indirectly to this criticism, flatly denying the account of the warning given by the flight school personnel. The notion of flying a plane into a building or using it as a bomb never came up, one senior official to the Washington Post January 2. It was a straight hijacking scenario that they were worried about.
This issue is of critical importance, and the flight school instructor, unlike the FBI, has absolutely no reason to lie. In the wake of September 11, FBI Director Robert Mueller flatly declared that the FBI had no indication that terrorists were seeking to use hijacked airliners as flying bombs. His assurances were accepted uncritically by the American media. The account given by the flight school shows that these assurances were lies.
A security stand-down.
The Moussaoui case is only one of a number of indications that the US government had ample warning that a major terrorist operation was under way in the United States and yet did nothing to preempt or block it.
* The governments of at least four countriesRussia, Germany, Israel and Egyptgave Washington specific warnings of terrorist attacks in the United States involving the use of hijacked airplanes as weapons, in the months leading up to September 11.
* The US government itself had multiple indications of the danger of suicide hijackings, based on its own investigations into other terrorist attacks attributed to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network.
* The US government was monitoring the electronic communications of bin Laden and his associates during the extensive period of advance planning which preceded the September 11 attack.
* Several of the September 11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader, were under direct surveillance by US agencies as suspected terrorists during 2000 and 2001.Yet they were allowed to travel freely into and out of the US and eventually carry out their plans.
September 11 took place amid a virtual stand-down of the security forces which permits no innocent explanation. The circumstances of the terrorist attacks deserve the most serious and conscientious investigation. Both the Bush administration and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress have rejected any such probe, suggesting that to question the role of the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies is unpatriotic.
But the facts which are known so far point to the conclusion that officials at the highest levels of the US government knew that a major terrorist attack was under way and made no serious effort to prevent it. The political motive can be inferred: they permitted an attack to go forwardwhether they knew its full dimensions or notin order to provide the necessary pretext for carrying out a right-wing agenda of military intervention abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.
==============================================================
ISLAMIC NEWS AND INFORMATION NETWORK: HTTP://WWW.ININ.NET
VISIT: HTTP://WWW.MEDIAMONITORS.NET
==============================================================
______________________________________________________
February 2002
From: Lysander Zimmerman <LAMZ@sympatico.com
#1. THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES by Colonel Donn de Grand Pré (US Army -
Ret.) http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/engt.htm
*******************************************************************
#2. NY Daily News 1/4/2002
Firefighter Magazine Raps 9/11 Probe
By JOE CALDERONE Daily News Chief of Investigations
"A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor.
A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not yet seen the editorial and declined to comment. Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not a definitive work." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study thecollapse. "We have to learn from incidents through investigation to determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight, core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of construction."
NY TIMES -City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center-December 20, 2001
"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."
NY TIMES
December 25, 2001 THE TOWERS
Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall "In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer. Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation...Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..."This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said...Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling," Dr. Mowrer said. "
[Also see http://baltech.org/lederman/ for more background on this]
*************************************************************
#3. "Home Run": Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/printer.html
*************************************************************
#4. "Dan Rather's excellent new fact!"
FAQ #2: "You charge that the military was made to stand down on 9-11. But planes did scramble. They just arrived late."
[Posted 3 January 2002]
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq2.htm
*************************************************************
#5. Oil company adviser named US representative to Afghanistan
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/oil-j03.shtml
*************************************************************
#6. US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml
______________________________________________________
March 2002
WHY DID MAINSTREAM MEDIA "VOW TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE INSIDER TRADING THAT PROFITED OFF THE 9-11 HORROR," AND THEN SUDDENLY . . . DROPPED THE STORY?
The 9 DISTURBING FACTS:
- The Bush Administration forced the FBI to back off of the Bin Laden investigation months before 9-11. [BBC transcript
BUSH - BIN LADEN HIDDEN AGENDA!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm
"I Don't Buy It" " I was one of the first tenants in the World Trade Center (WTC) back in 1979. Back then -- over 20 years
ago -- it was known to all the tenants of the WTC that the WTC was a "no fly" zone. If you came within 12 miles of the WTC,
flying outside of a pattern where you were supposed to be, you were warned to back off. If you came within five miles, they would threaten to shoot you down. If you came within three miles, they could shoot you down. If I remember correctly, on the roof of tower No. 2 they had surface to air missiles for that purpose, plus also the Spatz helicopters for that purpose.
"I had a friend who was flying a small plane who got warned away and they almost blew him out of the sky 20 years ago because he was showing somebody a close view of the towers. "I can see the first tower getting hit by surprise, but 15 minutes later the second tower also gets hit? I don't buy it." Walter Burien, Radio Free America, Nov 11, 2001 [See FAA and DOD standard procedures for off course flight intercepts and shootdowns (all violated on 9-11)].
- The CIA station chief in Dubai met with Bin Laden 7 weeks before 9-11, and at a time when Bin Laden was supposedly "wanted" by the CIA. http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html ·
(German Trans.)
http://www.orf.at/orfon/011031-44569/index.html
(US Wash Times Artcl: www.washtimes.com
Report: bin Laden treated at US hospital Elizabeth Bryant
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Published 10/31/2001
It looks like the one's with inside information are starting to come out of the woodwork! Check out this CBC Radio interview:
An interview with Michael Springman exposes the CIA's links with the terrorist attacks on September 11. Straight Goods reader Ken MacAllister of Vancouver, BC writes: "Michael Springmann worked for the US government for 20 years with the foreign service and consulate.He just went public with the story of his involvement in a large scale CIA operation that brought hundreds of people from the Middle East to the US, issued them passports and trained them to be terrorists."
Springmann says that the CIA is working closely with Bin Laden and his operatives in Jeddah and has been since 1987. The mosthaunting implication from this interview is that all of the terrorist acts of late were planned and paid for by the CIA with US taxpayers money so that the US could legitimately bomb the hell out of Afghanistan"
The interview is riveting, and I urge you to give it a listen. Hear the CBC(Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) interview here.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewNote.cfm?REF=1267
INSIDER TRADING PROFITS off of 9-11 were frenzied over by the US media when they thought it was Arab terrorists . . but then the story mysteriously died. Until, the UK Independent reveals that it leads to a firm chaired by the 3rd highest man in the CIA (and stranger still is that $2.5 million ofthe "winnings" are still unclaimed (see below for URL to entire story).
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html .
Info confirmed by Independent Newspaper in UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402
- ABC News.com's May/2001 story resurfaces about how the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have in the past ACTUALLY
DESIGNED a plan to commit domestic terror on Americans to whip them into a war hysteria, to support war efforts by the govt.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
[The National Security Archive has a PDF version of the Operation Northwoods plan, which author James Bamford says "may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government." It can be found at the following
URL:]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Strangely Anthrax is sent to (not the President, or Republicans) but to the top Democrat and to the media. A foreign terrorist would probably want to "divide" the country, not unite the opposition and the media in the war effort.
New Science Journal says Anthrax sent to Daschle is NOT Russian or Iraqi, but likely US military strain.
San Francisco Chronicle reports, the anthrax strain produced in US University is destroyed on ok of FBI (they had studied this for years, some at university question the timing of the destruction of those anthrax spores . . . right now of all times (?))
Terror Anthrax Linked to Type Made by U.S. The powder used in the anthrax attacks is virtually indistinguishable from that produced by the United States military, according to federal scientists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/national/03POWD.html?todaysheadlines
Bush Admin. declares they will "seal the records of presidents beginning with Father Bush/Reagan (an act never before done in US presidential history)." AND What bizarre timing. In the midst of a war and an economic disaster -- they find the time and "the
desire" to seal the records of the Reagan/Bush admin,just as info is surfacing about Bush/Bin Laden connections from years back. (Details in Scripps-Howard News Service, appearing in Chico, CA paper on 11/5/2001)
"It is not a stretch to wonder if this White House is up to something that it doesn't want known 12 years from now or anytime thereafter. [A direct quote from the piece carried by Scripps Howard News Service. Re: Bush's sealing of presidential records for the first time in U.S. history]
"We must try to find out why the twin towers fell" ByJames Quintiere, Baltimore Sun 1/3/01
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.towers03jan03.story
WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION from Fire Engineering Magazine "There are many, many questions to be asked by us about the World Trade Center collapse and its implications on high-rise firefighting across the nation. Some questions are political, many are technical, others are philosophical. "You would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong. ..."We, the undersigned, call on FEMA to immediately impanel a "World Trade Center Disaster Review Panel" to coordinate a complete review of all aspects of the World Trade Center incident."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 13th, 2002
More 9/11 frauds exposed..
Questions to ask yourself when viewing these images:
- For the physics whizzes out there:
Why is the Pentagon so lightly damaged after being struck by 100 ton (approx. 91,000 Kg) Boeing 757-200 flying at approximately 600 miles per hour (270 m/s), equaling a force of 35,200,000 kilojoules. This is simply the energy that the walls of the Pentagon would have to absorb from the plane alone. This does not take into account the combustive energy of the jet fuel!!
- If you accept the official version of the events -- that it hit the lawn of the Pentagon first -- why is the lawn perfectly unmarked?
I think that those defending the official version of events will have to start answering some questions now, not those erroneously dismissed as "conspiracy theorists"!!
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 15 2002
Vreeland - 9-11 conspiracy theory
From The Wilderness.. Vreeland in Safe House, All Canadian Charges Dropped, Temporary Refugee.
Delmart "Mike" Vreeland is out of danger for the time being.
9-11 whistleblower Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, the US Navy officer who wrote a written warning of the 9-11 attacks, a month before they occurred, was released on bail yesterday after a hearing in Toronto Superior Court in which he was ordered to reside at a Toronto apartment leased by his mother.
At the time the bail release order was issued, the address was made part of the public record and announced in open court, raising immediate fears that Vreeland, who has expressed fear for his safety, would become easy prey for would-be assassins.
The same pattern was followed immediately before the public execution of drug smuggler and intelligence operative Barry Seal in 1986.
Late yesterday afternoon, FTW Publisher/Editor Mike Ruppert spoke by telephone with both Vreeland and his attorney, Paul Slansky, and learned that Canadian authorities had agreed, shortly after the court hearing, to allow Vreeland to change his approved residence location to an undisclosed address in the Toronto vicinity in order to ensure his safety.
FTW has also learned that all Canadian charges connected to Vreeland's December 2000 arrest have been dropped and that Vreeland, who is seeking permanent political refugee status in Canada, has been granted temporary refugee status until February 2003, or until his extradition case has been resolved in Canadian courts.
Vreeland, who has also served as an informant on organized crime investigations in the US, allegedly while working as a Naval intelligence officer, has stated in Canadian court proceedings that he fears immediate assassination if forced to return to the US because of his ability to prove US government foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks and because of continuing threats from Russian and American organized crime.
Canadian courts have continually refused to allow Vreeland or his attorneys to present mounting evidence validating his assertions -- in many cases corroborated by official records -- that he was a Naval lieutenant conducting secret intelligence operations for the US government in Russia just before his Canadian arrest on Michigan fraud charges in December 2000.
Vreeland's claims that a Canadian diplomat, Marc Bastien, was murdered in Moscow, originally denied by Canadian officials, have since proven true as a result of autopsy findings. The Canadian government has since acknowledged that Bastien was murdered.
It was on these 2000 intelligence operations in Russia that Vreeland obtained the information which told him attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- among other targets -- were pending, and that US intelligence was aware of them. Vreeland's warning note, sealed and placed in the sole custody of Canadian jailers on Aug. 11 or 12, also contained the ominous statement, "Let one happen. Stop the rest."
That document was entered into evidence in Vreeland's extradition hearing on Oct. 7, 2001. At that time Canadian authorities acknowledged that the letter had been written a month before the attacks.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProletarianNews
_________________________________________________
March 20, 2002
NEW Content Regularly
Springmann's right - CIA responsible for letting in 9-11 terrorists
ANOTHER former US attaché in Saudi Arabia confirms CIA role in admitting terrorists but blames incompetence and low-level corruption rather than conspiracy for later events
Dateline: Saturday, March 09, 2002
Straight Goods received the following e-mail correspondence from Tim Hunter, former US consulate staffer in Saudi Arabia. In these notes, Hunter, who was a strong campaign team member with Ronald Reagan's and George Bush Sr., confirms what his former colleage Michael Springmann has charged - that corruption, cowtowing, and stupidity all played a role in letting 15 of the 9-11 terrorists into the US. For seven years, Hunter has raised the alarm about these practices, for which he has been ignored and ostracized by the government.
Tim Hunter wrote to Straight Goods:
I agree with Mike Springmann (whom I salute) : the CIA was doubtless the culprit for the irregularity which enabled murderous terrorists to freely infiltrate North America from Saudi Arabia.
I ascribe the CIA's motives to the racketeering organization I disclosed to US authorities. That disclosure resulted in my expulsion. I have attached a recent magazine piece about my disclosures. Certain parties in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has formed a racketeering organization, profiting from the importation and distribution of alcoholic beverages. The appetite for alcoholic beverages (and narcotics) in the KSA is as great as any western nation. And, with the wealth to afford costly alcoholic beverages the Saudi drinking public turns to illegal organizations which, in turn, receive importations through the USA Mission. The USA Mission typically imports very high-quality "bootleg" beverages in seaborne shipments transported in marine vessel cargo containers. The source of supply is "Class VI" US military inventory, which is procurable without paying excise or other taxes to the USA or KSA governments by the State Department. While I was serving in Saudi Arabia I received an anonymous note obviously written by a non-English-speaking person. The note described the vast wealth that was being obtained by corrupt members of the US Mission who coordinated the criminal rackets.
A further irony: I recommend visiting the US Mission in Saudi Arabia's website www.usembassy.state.gov/riyadh/wwwhvzxp.html.The "VISA Express" program found therein was originally instituted in a variant form several years ago; it swung (and continues to swing) the door wide open to the 15 terrorists involved with the World Trade Center/Pentagon terrorist flights. The "VISA Express" program valid USA Visas are issued to virtually anyone who applies - while in Saudi Arabia. In effect the US Mission in KSA abrogated its duties to be effective in issuing visas. It was then left to the Department of Justice's Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) at the USA destinations to screen out the terrorists as they came bounding off busy airplanes.
The VISA Express program is generally acknowledged to have made the USA door "wide open" for the group of terrorists who hit the WTC and the Pentagon, killing thousands. Fifteen of 19 terrorists have been reported as having obtained their visas in KSA. The other terrorists may also have entered North America by way of KSA and the Visas Express.
It is important to note Congress passed a statute after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center which makes every USA employee visa issuer legally responsible, subject to a fine, for issuing a "bad" visa. It seems that the Visa Express program came about as a way of reducing the legal exposure of the Consular staff - who were caught between many forces before they were able to transfer their duties to the Saudi travel agents.
Members of the Administration of President Bush and others have condemned the "VISA Express" program as the largest of the gaping holes in North America's security. Mike discussed the fact the USA government had plenty of forewarning about the improper issuance of visas in 1993. Then, an Egyptian extremist who had advocated religious hatred, gained a visa to the USA through the Sudan. The extremist was later found to be involved in a plot to blow up the World Trade Center.
The US Mission in KSA caters to USA business interests and the host government. The economic pressure from USA business is tremendous. And, there is considerable pressure from the Saudi elite who don't like to wait in consular lines; they want to jump on a plane to the USA whenever they feel like it. The Saudi elite have influential friends in the USA. What's more, the capability of traveling freely is an attribute of an advanced nation, which Saudi Arabia seems - in some ways. So the attitude and preference of the KSA regime is very clear.
There are a variety of intersecting forces that place US national interest last among the players involved - greedy USA corporations; influential Saudis; the institutional preferences of the Consular Corps; the pressure exerted behind the scenes by the intelligence agencies.
[Getting into the US took] excellent planning on the part of the terrorists. As to USA officials and foreign national employees of the US Mission and the Saudi travel agencies - well, there could be a "snake in the grass," but there is no evidence and no reason why that must be a snake. Incompetence if it is egregious is "criminal negligence." The US Mission in KSA was not only incompetent, it was criminally so.
No doubt the terrorists researched the best methods to try to gain entry to North America. But even the terrorists, or some of them, did not know what that the real mission was suicide.
Normally, "to be forewarned is to be forearmed." However the USA government has chosen "to be forewarned and foredoomed."
Timothy N. Hunter
Attaché, AMCONGEN Jeddah - Saudi Arabia (1993-94)
US Foreign Service - US State Department (ret)
International Religion Freedom Act of 1998 (coauthor)
US Mission Ottawa 1990-91
_________________________________________________
March 27th, 2002
Time Ripe for International Tribunal on The Great 9.11 Deception ?
Ever since it happened, people with any historical insight have known that the official version(s) of the Sept 11 terrorism is a big lie.
People knøwledgeable of treacherous deceipt being a normal pretext, for example Reichstag Fire 1933, Pearl Harbour, Italy's 'red' brigades, Mossad's routine deceptions, etc., were not in doubt for one moment.
By asking the fundamental question of any criminal case: Whom benefits the crime, it turned out that all of the foreseeable consequences of this attack would be in favour of the illigitimate fascist US regime at a very criticalmoment for its reign:
The Bush gang was facing a long economic depression, bankruptcy of mega corporations like Enron and others, complete revelation by the global resistance movement of the devastating consequences of the worldwide corporate conspiracy and their international instruments for suppression an exploitaion, etc.
But suddenly the 9.11 attacks under pretext of blaming 'terrorists' opened up for realization of all of the pre-existing fascist agenda for total world domination, occupation of Central Asia's oil, attacking other countries with oil reserves or non-compliant governments, cutting the constitutional rights in the Homeland so as to eliminate any dissent, etc.
The institutions to prevent and counteract this criminal agenda - the Democratic Party and the media - being complicit and therefore out of function, have left it for the people itself to stop the madness.
For 6 months the Democratic Party - besides voting for the so-called 'Patriotic Act' - have done nothing for unmasking the treason. When some symbolic investigation finally had to be initiated they chose a CIA representative to lead the investigation of CIA !
The completely silent mainstream media are owned by the culprits and on top of that run by 50 Zionists with a pro Sharon fascist agenda. This war-criminal probably had a central role in the Great Deception.
The control functions of the 'democracy' thus being non-existent, several patriots therefore have spent the last 6 months with researching what REALLY happened. And now an overwhelming evidence of the events has emerged, see for example
http://www.copvcia.com,
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup,
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFalloutShelter
http://www.apfn.org
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/agentsmiley
http://www.truthout.org
http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/insight.htm
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-crusade
The logical next stage calls for a synthesis of the huge amounts of evidence collected by these experts.
As the publication of the conclusion for the time being is the only hope for stopping the warmongers, a maximum spreading of this information in spite of the silence of the corporate media is essential.
A tribunal of internationally renown personalities could evaluate the evidence gathered by the experts. If possible, government employees involved in the conspiracy could witness, if guarantee for their security from becoming assassinated by CIA could be provided for in one way or the other.
All governments of the world should be invited to attend the tribunal to evaluate for themselves whether the 'war on terrorism' hereinafter should be supported, or respectively rejected as a criminal pretext for subverting their own countries.
This people's court of course also should invite the US terror regime to publicly defend its ridiculous version of its Sept 11 terror.
Please send all comments and proposals with regard to experts, tribunal members, location, protection of possible witnesses, etc., to the listserv
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/take_over
The United Peoples
http://www.unitedpeoples.net
________________________________________________
April 2002
Doubts in the US Congress in April 2002
Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot
WASHINGTON POST
Friday, April 12, 2002; Page A16
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."
In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th?
Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"
McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."
Bush spokesman Scott McLellan dismissed McKinney's comments.
"The American people know the facts, and they dismiss such ludicrous, baseless views," he said. "The fact that she questions the president's legitimacy shows a partisan mind-set beyond all reason."
In the radio conversation, McKinney delivered a stinging attack on the administration. In 2000, she charged, Bush forces "stole from America our most precious right of all, the right to free and fair elections." With the September attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in
Pennsylvania, McKinney said, "an administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power."
She suggested that the administration was serving the interests of a Washington-based investment firm, the Carlyle Group, which employs a number of high-ranking former government officials from both parties. Former president George H.W. Bush -- the current president's father -- is an adviser to the firm. McKinney said the war on terrorism has enriched Carlyle Group investors by enhancing the value of a military contractor partly owned by the firm.
Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman asked: "Did she say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?"
During her five terms in office, McKinney has often given voice to radical critiques of U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East.
She defied the State Department to investigate assertions that international sanctions are brutalizing innocent Iraqis.
With her comments concerning Sept. 11, McKinney, 47, seems to have tapped into a web of conspiracy theories circulating during the past six months among people who believe that the government is partially -- or entirely -- to blame for last year's attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people.
"What is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th," McKinney charged. "America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions."
None of McKinney's colleagues has embraced her allegations, but a few said they are familiar with the theories.
"I've heard a number of people say it," said Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), who quickly added, "I can't say that it would be a widely held view" among lawmakers.
Some lawmakers have a less charitable view of McKinney's penchant for publicity. Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said McKinney is simply trying to impress her constituents.
"She's demonstrated at home an ability to win," he said, "and she's demonstrated in Washington a total lack of responsibility in her statements."
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a friend of McKinney's, said the Georgia Democrat is adept at seizing on "red-meat" issues that resonate with her political base and have helped her fend off a series of GOP challengers.
"She's not as random as people think," Kingston said. "People always want to hear a political conspiracy theory."
Staff writer David Von Drehle contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
_____________________________________________________________
April 12 2002
Congresswoman McKinney, Investigate Bushwack Gang,
Links to 911 and More Links
Congresswoman McKinney Presses for Investigation of
Bush Administration Links to 9-11
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.13A.Extend.Probe.htm
The need for an investigation of the events surrounding September 11 is as obvious as is the need for an investigation of the Enron debacle. Certainly, if the American people deserve answers about what went wrong with Enron and why (and we do), then we deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why.
Are we squandering our goodwill around the world with what many believe to be incoherent, warmongering policies that alienate our friends and antagonize our allies? How much of a role does our reliance on imported oil play in the military policies being put forward by the Bush Administration? And what role does the close relationship between the Bush Administration and the oil and defense industries play, if any, in the policies that are currently being pursued by this Administration?
We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why. After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened and to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects when they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our nation?
News reports from Der Spiegel to the London Observer, from the Los Angeles Times to MSNBC to CNN, indicate that many different warnings were received by the Administration. In addition, it has even been reported that the United States government broke bin Laden's secure communications before September 11. Sadly, the United States government is being sued today by survivors of the Embassy bombings because, from court reports, it appears clear that the US had received prior warnings, but did little to secure and protect the staff at our embassies.
Did the same thing happen to us again?
I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which, have soared since September 11.
On the other hand, what is undeniable is that corporations close to the Administration, have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath cof September 11. The Carlyle Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton certainly stand out as companies close to this Administration. Secretary Rumsfeld maintained in a hearing before Congress that we can afford the new spending, even though the request for more defense spending is the highest increase in twenty years and the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion.
All the American people are being asked to make sacrifices. Our young men and women in the military are being asked to risk their lives in our War Against Terrorism while our President's first act was to sign an executive order denying them high deployment overtime pay. The American people are being asked to make sacrifices by bearing massive budget cuts in the social welfare of our country, in the areas of health care, social security, and civil liberties for our enhanced military and security needs arising from the events of September 11; it is imperative that they
know fully why we make the sacrifices. If the Secretary of Defense tells us that his new military objectives must be to occupy foreign capital cities and overthrow regimes, then the American people must know why. It should be easy for this Administration to explain fully to the American people in a thorough and methodical way why we are being asked to make these sacrifices and if, indeed, these sacrifices will make us more secure. If the Administration cannot articulate these answers to the American people, then the Congress must.
This is not a time for closed-door meetings and this is not a time for se crecy. America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions. The world is teetering on the brink of conflicts while the Administration's policies are vague, wavering and unclear. Major financial conflicts of interest involving the President, the Attorney General, the Vice President and others in the Administration have been and continue to be exposed.
This is a time for leadership and judgment that is not compromised in any fashion. This is a time for transparency and a thorough investigation.
________________________________________________
May 2002
Sept 11: CIA, State Dept Stonewalling Inquiry?
Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit
Los Angeles Times - May 4, 2002
Inquiry of Intelligence Failures Hits Obstacles
Sept. 11: The lawmakers leading the investigation voice concerns that the CIA and Justice Department are undermining efforts.
By GREG MILLER, TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers leading the investigation of intelligence agencies' failures surrounding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are increasingly concerned that tactics by the CIA and the Justice Department are actively impeding their efforts, congressional sources said Friday.
Members of the Senate and House intelligence committees are so frustrated with the tactics, sources said, that they intend to complain directly to CIA Director George J. Tenet and Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft.
Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to discuss the committee's concerns with the CIA and the FBI in detail but said: "There are problems we are going to have to address." The flare-up centers on obstacles congressional investigators say the agencies have strewn in their path. The CIA, for example, has refused to allow investigators to send their contact information to agency employees by e-mail to make it easier for the employees to volunteer information, congressional sources familiar with the investigation said.
At the Justice Department, the intelligence committees' requests for records take weeks to wind their way through the department's bureaucracy and sometimes are simply not acted upon, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
The perceived heel-dragging has bogged down an inquiry that already was sidetracked last week by the resignation of its lead investigator. Congressional investigators are under pressure to complete their work before ranking Intelligence Committee members' terms expire at the end of the year.
"There's no time to waste," one source said, adding that the targets of the inquiry seem intent on exploiting that deadline. Although the agencies have cooperated somewhat, he said, their recent tactics are a significant impediment.
CIA officials flatly rejected the suggestion that they are less than cooperative. "The CIA has provided extraordinary support to the investigation staff," CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said. "We have provided thousands of pages of documents, facilitated numerous interviews, housed members of their staff in our headquarters and provided briefings on counterterrorism, all while fighting a war.
"We have had 15 members of the agency staff working full time since before there was a congressional investigation collecting material to aid their efforts."
Justice Department officials also brushed aside investigators' complaints. "The attorney general has worked cooperatively with Congress on all matters related to Sept. 11 and will continue to do so," said Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs.
Members of the intelligence committees discussed the perceived lack of cooperation in meetings this week. Describing the mood among members, one aide said, "You have to use the word 'angst.'"
By Friday, the ranking members of the committees had agreed to take the issue directly to the heads of the CIA and the Justice Department. Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Shelby, and Reps. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) were going to request meetings.
A CIA official, who asked not to be identified, said he was unaware of any planned meetings: "I can tell you that none of the leadership of these committees have called Director Tenet to advise him of any unhappiness."
The friction underscores the stakes of an investigation that could yield embarrassing details about what the nation's $30-billion intelligence community knew or didn't know leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The congressional probe was launched in February. It aims to determine whether the terrorist attacks could have been prevented, and to consider ways to improve the nation's intelligence capabilities.
Sources close to the investigation said they recently obtained documents indicating that an FBI agent in Arizona had warned headquarters concerning his suspicions about Arabs training at area aviation schools months before the attacks.
Small teams of investigators have been based at the Justice Department and the CIA, gathering documents and conducting interviews. They have come back with a litany of complaints about tactics they say are designed to slow their progress and restrict their access to documents and potential informants, sources said.
All interviews with agency employees are supervised by CIA officials who have prevented investigators even from collecting business cards or phone numbers from interview subjects, sources said.
The CIA official said employees have been urged to cooperate with the probe and that a notice listing investigators' contact information is scheduled to be distributed next week.
Investigators also complain that they have been stationed in a location at the agency where employees cannot get to their offices without passing by, and probably attracting the notice of, the CIA's congressional affairs staff.
"In a sense, they've put a wall up so no one can get to the investigators," a congressional source said.
The CIA official acknowledged that investigators were placed near the agency's congressional affairs office but said that was to assist the investigators.
Investigators also say their requests for certain documents have been rebuffed, often by agency employees who explain that they first need clearance from all other spy agencies that contributed material to the documents.
And when investigators do get to view documents, sources said, it has been only under the supervision of CIA staffers.
Former CIA officials say that they would be surprised if the agency were intentionally hindering the investigation and that much of the tension might be because of legitimate security concerns.
"In my experience, I have been absolutely astonished at the amount of detail the intelligence community and the CIA in particular give the Congress," said Jeffrey Smith, a former general counsel for the CIA.
He said the only exceptions tend to be when there is a need to protect sensitive information.
As for the intelligence agency refusing to circulate investigators' contact information, Smith said, partly in jest: "Frankly, anybody at CIA who wants to leak to the committee who can't figure out how to do it" probably shouldn't be working there.
______________________________________________
April 2002
The Truth About 9-11
Vic Ratsma
The U.S. has gone to war fighting terrorism. Many countries, including my own country of Canada, have expressed support and are providing assistance, attacking the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan. All this is being justified based on ONE event, the attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. It is therefore absolutely imperative that the truth is known about the event. Many questions remain unanswered. As well, publicly available information obtained through regular media sources suggests that the official story line is not the full story, or even the correct story.
I do believe, that, at the very minimum, the U.S. authorities knew of the impending attack and did nothing to prevent it.
They might have been surprised by the magnitude of the damage, as the twin towers were not supposed to collapse as a result of the impact of an aircraft. Perhaps that is why the last flight (US93) appears to have been shot down, a belated reaction to minimize further damage.
The incident ultimately served to declare war on terrorism, but in effect an attack for attacking any nation the U.S. sees as being "in the interest of the U.S.A." or as an imagined threat to their security.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS?
(A) THE HIJACKINGS
Four airplanes are hijacked, more or less simultaneously:
*AA &endash; Departs Boston @07.59 &endash; Hits World Trade Center North Tower
*UA 77 &endash; Departs Newark @ 08.10 &endash; Crashed in Pa.
*AA 77 &endash; Departs Washington @ 08.10 &endash; Hits Pentagon
*UA 175 &endash; Departs Boston @ 08.14 &endash; Hits World Trade Center South Tower
The hijackings of four airplanes within such a short time span is unique and has never happened before. Official reaction by the U.S. authorities was one of apparent complete surprise. Yet there is ampler evidence to show that they knew the attack was coming.
WARNING SIGNS
On June 10, 2001, German intelligence, the BNF, warned both the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture (Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 14, 2001)
Summer 2001, an Iranian man phones U.S. law enforcement to warn of an imminent attack on the World Trade Center in the week of September 9th. German police confirm the call that then U.S. Secret Service would not reveal any further information. (Source: German News Agency "online", September 14, 2001)
Summer 2001 &endash; Russian intelligence notifies the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots have been specially trained for suicide missions. This is reported in the Russian press and the news stories are translated for the FTW (From the Wilderness, a U.S. publication; VR) by a retired CIA officer.
August 20, 2001 &endash; Russian President Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the imminent attacks on airports and government buildings." (Source &endash; MS-NBC interview with Putin, Sept. 15, 2001)
September 3, 2001 &endash; MS-NBC reported on Sept. 16 that a caller to a Cayman Island radio station talk-show gave several warnings of an imminent attack on the U.S. by bin Laden in the week prior to September 11th attack.
September 11, 2001 &endash; Employees of Odigo Inc. in Israel, one of the world's biggest instant messaging companies with offices in New York, receive threat warnings of an imminent attack on the World Trade Center, less than two hours before the planes hit the WTC. Law enforcement authorities have gone silent about any investigation into this. The Odigo offices in Israel are in the same location as the Institute for Counter Terrorism, the office which brought early details of insider trading on September 11th on the Wall Street Stock Exchange. (Source &endash; CNN's Daniel Sieberg 9/28/01. Newsbytes, Brian McWilliams 9/27/01; Ha'aretz, 9/26/01).
August 17, 2001 &endash; U.S. Navy Lt. Delmar "Mike" Vreeland, jailed in Toronto, Canada on U.S. fraud charges and claiming to be an officer of the U.S. Naval Intelligence, writers details of the impending WTC attacks and seals it in an envelope which he gives to Canadian authorities. (Source &endash; The Toronto Star, Oct. 23, 2001: Toronto Superior Court Records)
September 14, 2001 &endash; Canadian jailers opened the sealed envelope in Toronto and saw that it described the attacks against the WTC and the Pentagon. The U.S. Navy subsequently stated that Vreeland was discharged as a seaman in 1986 for unsatisfactory performance and has never worked in intelligence. (Source &endash; The Toronto Star, October 23, 2001; Toronto Superior Court Records)
January 10, 2002 &endash; In call from a speaker phone in open court, attorneys for "Mike" Vreeland call the Pentagon's switchboard operator who confirms that Vreeland is indeed a Naval Officer on active duty. She provided an office number and a direct-dial phone extension to his office in the Pentagon. (Source &endash; Attorney Rocco Galati; Court Records Toronto Superior Court)
LACK OF MILITARY ACTION
Even though it is obvious from the beginning that the U.S. was well aware of the impending attack, they did nothing to prevent it.
September 11, 2001 &endash; For 35 minutes, from 8.15 AM until 9.05 AM, with it widely known within the FAA and the military that four commercial planes have been simultaneously hijacked and taken off course, no one notifies the President of the United States. It is not until 9.30 AM that any Air Force planes are scrambled to intercept, but by then it is too late. This means that the National Command Authority waited for 75 minutes before scrambling the aircraft, even though it was known that four simultaneous hijackings have occurred &endash; an event that has never happened before in history. (Sources &endash; CNN, ABC, MS, NBC &endash; The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times)
This lack of timely reaction by the military during the hijackings is incomprehensible, especially in a highly defended areas like the east coast of the United States, including both the White House and the Pentagon. One of these planes reportedly flew right through the permanent "no fly zone" around the White House, yet not a shot was fired, even though the White House is said to be well defended from its rooftops.
OTHER INTERESTING DETAILS
Although the official story states that that the attack came as a complete surprise, it apparently took less than two hours to identify the source of the attack: Osama bin Laden. The authorities who knew nothing beforehand suddenly had all kinds of information as to who was responsible. Not enough time had even elapsed to even START an investigation, let alone COMPLETE one!
March 11, 2002 &endash; Six months after Osama bin Laden was charged with responsibility for the attack, he has not been captured and his name has virtually disappeared from the news and as a target for arrest. Since he was supported by the CIA in the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was involved and supported by the CIA in Kosovo, Yugoslavia and, given the known relationship between the Bush family and the bin Laden family with respect to oil investments, it is not credible that the U.S. really wants to arrest Osama bin Laden (previous opportunities to do so were also spurned).
The FBI head of counter-terrorism since 1995, John O'Neill, investigated several terrorist incidents in the Middle East, but was regularly frustrated in his efforts by the U.S. Ambassador to Yemen and the Bush government. He retired in disgust in July 2001, but was offered a job at three times his earlier salary ($300,000) as Head of Security at the Word Trade Center. His first day on the job was September 11th. He was killed that same day. (Source &endash; www.movement.v21net.uk/Johno.htm)
Quite apart from the fact that his pursuit of Osama bin Laden was being frustrated by U.S. authorities, what are we to make of his death? Just a coincidence or was he considered a very troublesome accessory who knew too much?
What happened to the flight data and the voice recorders on each of the aircraft? Why is the record being withheld from the public? It is known that the "black box" from Flight 93 has been received, but the FBI won't release the tape. There was at least one request from a victim's family to hear the recording and several efforts by Republican Ellen Tauscher, Democrat of California to the FBI to play the tapes for those families who want to hear them. (Source &endash; CNN.com, Dec. 2002). So, what are the U.S. authorities hiding? And where is the flight data from the three airplanes? The black box is supposed to withstand major impact. Have they been recovered and, if so, what do they tell us?
CONCLUSIONS
It has been reported that the U.S. planned the attack and invasion of Afghanistan well before September 11th, 2001. What was needed was an incident that would ensure the support of the American people as well as NATO allies and other countries. Amazingly, this precise scenario, including the location was described in the book written in 1997 by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. foreign policy advisor in the Carter administration. According to Brzezinski, an event equal to the attack on Pearl Harbour would be required to ensure the support of the American people for the military action in Central Asia.
Even with the small amount of information presented in this article (and there is much, much more), it is clear that the U.S. is implicated in the September 11th attack, if not in actual planning, then in the acquiescence to let it happen. Had the warnings been heeded, the whole event might have been prevented.
The main question that remains is: When is the official media in the U.S., Canada, France, Britain and Europe, and indeed around the world, going to conduct serious investigation, which has thrown the whole world into so much turmoil? And how long are today's U.S. allies prepared to support this effort?
I am extremely grateful to Michael Rapport from the Wilderness Publications for much of the data in this report, to VISION TV and the program Insight Media-file on which, among others, Michael Ruppert appeared and many other Internet services which include The Emperors-Clothes. Without all their research we would still be in the dark.
______________________________________________________
April 16 2002
Hot Type Transcript: Noam Chomsky "9-11"
Interview April 16, 2002
Part 1: <http://cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_chomsky911.html#part1> What Afghanistan wanted and how the U.S. responded
Part 2: <http://cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_chomsky911.html#part2> Is the U.S. a terrorist state?
Part 3: <http://cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_chomsky911.html#part3> Differing perspectives:Robert Kaplan and Noam Chomsky
Part 4: <http://cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_chomsky911.html#part4> Can trust be restored?
Part 5: <http://cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_chomsky911.html#part5> Clash of civilizations
______________________________________________________
May 21st, 2002
Bush knew of al-Qaeda jet hijack strategy
by James Doran in Washington
PRESIDENT BUSH faced a congressional investigation yesterday after admitting that he received warnings of possible al-Qaeda plans to hijack a US aircraft shortly before the suicide attacks on New York and Washington.
Republican and Democrat politicians demanded an immediate inquiry to determine whether the information could have prevented the September 11 attacks. Congress also demanded to know why Mr Bush did not disclose for nine months that he had information about a possible terrorist hijacking so close to September 11, despite being questioned repeatedly about US intelligence prior to the attack.
Tom Daschle, the Senate Majority leader and a Democrat, said he was gravely concerned? by the revelation and asked Mr Bush to turn over to Congress all the information he had received.
There is a lot more to be learnt before we can come to any final conclusion about all of the facts but it clearly raises some very important questions that have to be asked and have to be answered, he said.
The White House confirmed that Mr Bush personally received a CIA intelligence report in the first week of last August that described a hijacking threat by members of Osama bin Laden?s terrorist organisation. The information was handed to the President at an early morning meeting while he was resting at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security adviser, were also understood to have been party to the information.
Officials said that Mr Bush had been given a first warning about a heightened spike? of terrorist activity against American targets overseas in May last year and that the August briefing was a response to the President?s demand for clearer information about the possibility of attack.
Mr Bush´s daily intelligence report from the CIA, the most classified government document in America, contains a so-called threat matrix, which shows the extent to which the US is under threat from terrorists or foreign enemies. The risk to the US rose from early 2001 to a peak in August, when the President was informed.
Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said that the information received in August by Mr Bush was generalised information about potential hijackings? and contained no specific threat. Neither the CIA, the FBI nor the President had had any idea that hijacked aircraft would be used as missiles against targets on American soil. This was a new type of attack which had not been foreseen, Mr Fleischer added.
Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona who sits on the Government Affairs Committee, said he would push for a full commission on the scandal. There were two separate FBI reports plus a CIA warning, none of which were co-ordinated. The question is: would, if all three had been connected, that have led to more vigorous activity Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat Congressman from New York, described Mr Bush´s lack of action after receiving the security briefing as ?non-feasance of public office of the highest order?. He said the President should take responsibility for the attacks if it was proved he was given ample warning.
The White House said that all relevant departments, including Congress, the Federal Aviation Administration, national airline carriers and the Department of Transportation, were informed of the threat. Members of the Congress Intelligence Committee denied that any such information had been passed to them.
The admission comes after the FBI was criticised for ignoring warnings about Middle Eastern men attending a flight school in Arizona and criticism of Mr Bush for giving away pictures of himself aboard his personal jet on September 11 in exchange for donations to the Republican Party.
Yasser al Siri, a publisher in Paddington, is the latest al-Qaeda suspect to have terror charges against him dropped after a judge ruled there was no evidence against him. After he left the Old Bailey, where he had been accused of helping to plot the murder of the anti-Taleban commander Ahmed Shah Masood, Mr al Siri, 39, was arrested on a US extradition warrant alleging that he provided money for al-Qaeda.
For a more graphic view of what The Times says smirk knew, and when, see:
http://208.133.38.112/nytransfer-subs/images/warnings.html
______________________________________________________
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the May 30, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
ALL THEY NEEDED WAS A PRETEXT: WAR PLANS WERE READY BEFORE 9/11 Bush Administration Waited for a Catastrophe.
By Fred Goldstein
The latest political crisis of the Bush administration over what it knew about an impending attack on U.S. targets in the late summer of 2001 has commanded the attention of the people. Anti-war activists, especially, are rightfully suspicious and skeptical about the behavior and explanations of the war makers in the White House.
Ever since May 15, when CBS News revealed that the CIA had briefed President George W. Bush last Aug. 6 about possible plane hijackings-- five weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks-- the air has been thick with charges and accusations. They have ranged from negligence to incompetence to bureaucratic rivalry between the FBI and CIA to systemic problems of "not connecting the dots" because the administration did not act on FBI alerts of July 10 and Aug. 13.
It is notable that in this scandal the Democrats have finally broken with the Bush administration--but not over the war. The prospect of the spoils of office in the coming elections has finally overcome their subservience. Their demands for investigations and inquiries dovetail with the demands of sections of the capitalist establishment who are truly appalled and want to get to the bottom of the matter so that it does not happen again.
But the last thing in the world the anti-war movement, or for that matter the workers and the oppressed, should do is follow the path of the Democratic Party leadership and make the issue in this crisis the question of "who knew what, when" about intelligence information. This question sidesteps the most fundamental issue of significance to the vast majority of the people at home and abroad. It also plays into the hands of those who want to strengthen the repressive forces of the state.
The real issue that needs exposure is the conspiracy of the Bush administration and the ruling class behind it to enter a new bloody era of expanding war around the globe. During the debate over what Bush knew and should have done, there have been momentary references to a war plan that was drawn up and on his desk on Sept. 10. This wasput forward briefly when National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was defending him, and it has been cited a few times in the big business press, but never really was followed up from an anti-war point of view.
There is little information about this plan, but the veil was slightly lifted in a sanitized version as part of a lengthy series in January in the Washington Post by Bob Woodward and Dan Balz. The series recounted the immediate post-Sept. 11 day-by-day decision-making process in the Bush administration that led to the war on Afghanistan.
CIA TAKES THE LEAD
According to Woodward and Balz, CIA director George Tenet played the lead position in the planning. Tenet was the only holdover from the Clinton administration at such a high level in the Bush administration. He had all the strings to global operations and fit right in with the Bush forces. At a crucial meeting at Camp David on Saturday, Sept. 15, after a series of previous morning meetings of the "war cabinet," Tenet showed up "with a briefcase stuffed with top-secret documents and plans, in many respects the culmination of four years of work.
"The briefing packet he handed to President Bush and other members of the war cabinet carried a cover sheet entitled 'Going to War.' Tenet flipped past the cover to the first page, which read 'Initial Hook: Destroying Al Qaeda, Closing the Safe Haven.' The haven was Afghanistan." (Washington Post, Jan. 31)
The series had explained two days earlier that, "Tenet's concept called for bringing together expanded intelligence- gathering resources, covert action, sophisticated technology, agency paramilitary teams and opposition forces in Afghanistan. They would then be combined with U.S. military power and Special Forces into an elaborate and lethal package.
"Tenet said that the United States already had a 'large asset base,' given the work the CIA had been doing in countries near Afghanistan.
"The unmanned Predator surveillance aircraft that was now armed with Hellfire missiles had been operating for more than a year out of Uzbekistan to provide real-time video of Afghanistan. ... In addition the U.S. should seek to work closely with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan to stop the travel of Al Qaeda leaders and 'close all borders.'
"A key portion of Tenet's briefing," continued the Post, "covered operations inside Afghanistan." He described mobilizing the Northern Alliance, which was "a potentially powerful force but was desperate for money, weapons and intelligence." He also described the creation of a "northern front, closing the safe haven," and how the U.S. "would move first against the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif" and open up the border of Uzbekistan.
Tenet also "described a role for the opposition tribes in the southern part of Afghanistan, groups hostile to the northern opposition forces but crucial to the campaign. ... Tenet said the CIA had begun working with a number of tribal leaders in the south the previous year. ...
Some would try to play both sides but once the war began, they could be enticed by money, food, ammunition and supplies to join the U.S.-led campaign."
BUSH TAKES PENTAGON OPTION THREE
The Post described how, at the Camp David meeting, "Tenet then turned to another top secret document, called 'Worldwide Attack Matrix,' which described covert operations in 80 countries that were either under way or that he was now recommending. The actions ranged from routine propaganda to lethal covert action in preparation for military attacks.
"The final presentation of the morning came from Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had also brought a big brief case to Camp David." Shelton described three options to Bush, each one more deadly than the last.
The third option, which Bush chose, "combined cruise missiles, manned bomber attacks" and "boots on the ground." It also included U.S. Special Forces and possibly Army and Marines being deployed inside Afghanistan.
In other words, Tenet and Shelton described a long-planned, ground and air campaign in all its precision, including the battle of Mazar-e-Sharif--which later took place, prompting a great massacre carried out by the Northern Alliance. In the campaign in the southern region, the
present puppet president, Hamid Karzai, played the key role of liaison with the CIA. The diplomatic groundwork with neighboring states; the use of smart bombs and cruise missiles; the use of the Predator as a key instrument of war; and many other minutiae- all these elements had required lengthy planning.
Condoleezza Rice, referring to the plan when she was defending Bush against charges of negligence, made it appear that it had been hurriedly thrown together as a response to warnings in July and August. Woodward and Balz, however, said they had learned that for several months before Sept. 11, as part of the administration's review of its policy, "Tenet and Rice and other officials had been working on a plan to vastly expand covert action in Afghanistan and throughout the world."
BUSH AT THE CITADEL: PENTAGON'S WAR DREAMS
During the election campaign Bush had given an outline of his belligerent military policy in an infamous speech at the Citadel on Sept. 23, 1999. It was written by Richard Armitage, now undersecretary of state, who was then bucking for the post of secretary of defense. In it Bush foreshadowed the Pentagon's dreams that were to be carried out over the bodies of the Afghan people.
Bush spoke of how "our forces in the next century must be agile, lethal, readily deployable, and require a minimum of logistical support. We must be able to project power over long distances, in days or weeks rather than months. Our military must be able to identify targets by a variety of means-from a Marine patrol to a satellite. Then be able to destroy those targets almost instantly, with an array of weapons."
Bush continued, "In the air, we must be able to strike from across the world with pinpoint accuracy-with long-range aircraft and perhaps with unmanned systems."
From this perspective the U.S. destruction of Afghanistan can be viewed as a weapons and strategy testing program for the Pentagon.
All the information coming out now about prior warnings of an attack on some U.S. installation only confirms the theory that the warlike group of Bush, Tenet, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, with Colin Powell reluctantly tagging along behind, knew full well that there would be a strike. They were coiled like a spring, waiting for it to happen, so they could use it as a pretext to open a massive worldwide offensive.
RUMSFELD: DISCIPLINE THE WORLD
The Post articles described how "many months earlier, in the formative stages of his new administration, Bush had talked with his prospective secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, about their shared belief that America's deterrent strength had been eroded through misapplication of the country's military power. Rumsfeld recalls saying to Bush that whenever the United States was attacked or threatened, the Clinton administration had followed a pattern of 'reflexive pullback.' Rumsfeld said he believed that U.S. power was needed to help discipline the world."
They considered President Bill Clinton's 1998 bombing of Afghanistan with 48 cruise missiles and the destruction of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan with another cruise missile as "weak and provocative," according to the Post. The massive bombing of Belgrade and other Yugoslav cities by Clinton in a flagrant war of aggression was limited child's play to the Bush group, although Tenet was a Clinton appointee.
WAITING FOR A CATASTROPHE
The fact of the matter is that Sept. 11 did not cause the war in Afghanistan. As horrendous as it was, Sept. 11 turned out to be only a pretext, one the Bush forces knew would come sooner or later. They were all cynically waiting for a catastrophe in order to pounce.
The war was followed by the declaration of an "axis of evil"- -Iran, Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
This was followed by the leak of plans called the Bush Nuclear Posture Review, which threaten the development and use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
Then came the U.S. backing of Israel's massive offensive against the Palestinian Authority and the attempted destruction of the Palestine national movement.
Meanwhile the FARC liberation force in Colombia that has been fighting the U.S.-backed death squad government for 30 years was declared a "terrorist" organization; $1.3 billion was given to the Colombian government to fight them.
Some 3,000 U.S. troops are now on the ground in the Philippines fighting and guiding puppet forces in a war that is really against the liberation forces of the New People's Army; the fight against the miniscule Abu Sayyef group is just a cover for intervention.
U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton recently accused Cuba of having the capacity to manufacture and distribute biological weapons material.
Washington sponsored a coup d'etat against the popular government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, but it failed.
When the smoke cleared after the initial big offensive in Afghanistan, the Pentagon had new military bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgizstan. It has the dominant position in the oil rich region of the Caspian Sea. It has expanded its power to the southern rim of Russia and the southwestern flank of China. And it is in a strategic position to dominate the Arabian Sea and wage long-range war in the Persian Gulf if it has to.
Equally important, the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex got a massive infusion of present and future profits from a trillion-dollar five-year spending plan-a plan which comes at the expense of schools, housing, child care, medical care and every other social need of the workers.
It is only possible to evaluate Sept. 11 fully in light of what followed. To be sure, it is highly probable that the Bush forces had no idea that such devastation to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon would result from sitting and waiting for a military pretext. But as disastrous as those attacks were, with all the death and destruction they caused, the Bush forces went to war not because innocent lives were lost but because they were hell bent on expanding the world domination of U.S. imperialism. They wanted to terrorize the world and send a threatening message of destruction to any government or force that even contemplates resisting that domination.
DON'T FIX THE FORCES OF REPRESSION--FIGHT THEM
Seen in this light, it would be folly to jump on the bandwagon and demand to find out "who knew what" in the government. What they knew is that they wanted to go to war against the oppressed people of the world. If there is going to be any investigation, it should be of the conspiracy to go to war.
As far as improving the efficiency of coordination among the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon, in the name of protecting lives, any such proposal should be rejected out of hand. The FBI is a proven racist force that was behind the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover waged a vicious campaign against King and the entire civil rights movement.
The FBI under President Richard Nixon carried out COINTELPRO, which murdered and framed up Black Panther Party leaders and members. It also attacked the Young Lords, the Chicano movement and the American Indian Movement, sentencing Leonard Peltier to jail for life. In the 1980s the FBI carried out a campaign of frame-ups against Black elected officials. It is now engaged in a witch-hunt against people of Middle Eastern descent. During the 1950s the FBI carried out a similar witch-hunt against communists and progressives, particularly in the union movement. It is now coordinating with local police departments in an "improvement" of repressive efficiency.
As for the CIA, it is akin to an international Murder Incorporated, carrying out assassinations and attempted assassinations of leaders; overthrowing popular governments from Guatemala to Iran, from Congo to Chile. It was part of the recent coup attempt in Venezuela through the National Endowment for Democracy.
The Pentagon, of course, is the enemy of the world's people.
Any effort to improve the "efficiency" of these repressive institutions can only increase their efficiency in repression of the movement worldwide. Not only should the movement shun any attempt to improve these institutions, it should have as its aim to push them back, to interfere with their functioning through mass mobilization against all forms of repression and, ultimately, to break them up and replace them with a popular power.
WASHINGTON, WALL STREET AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
As far as protecting the safety of the people in the U.S., it must be recalled that, however misguided and condemnable the Sept. 11 attack was, it was nevertheless the result of decades of aggression against the peoples of the Middle East by the U.S. and its proxy Israel. The U.S. war in the Persian Gulf killed 200,000 Iraqis. The cities of Baghdad and Basra as well as villages and towns were mercilessly bombed. The U.S.-imposed sanctions have killed 1.5 million people, including hundreds of thousands of children.
The U.S. government has backed the hated dictatorship of the feudal monarchy in Saudi Arabia for decades and made the country into an oil and military satellite of Washington and Wall Street. For decades the U.S. backed the hated dictatorial Shah of Iran. Washington has supplied and financed the 50-year enforcement of the cruel Israeli occupation of Palestine, including many massacres of Palestinians carried out by Ariel Sharon. It financed the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon in which 14,000 people died under Israeli bombs.
U.S. oil companies control the vast oil wealth of the Persian Gulf while only a few rich monarchs, emirs and sultans live high and the mass of the people live in poverty. U.S. warships and military aircraft are everywhere threatening all who rebel against this intolerable situation.
Under these conditions it is clear that the safety of the people of the U.S. can only be guaranteed by the withdrawal of the U.S. government, its military and the multinational corporations from the region. The safety of the workers here at home can only be guaranteed when the people of the Middle East are safe from U.S. domination.
______________________________________________
May 26th, 2002
The Lie Won't Stand
by Michael Ruppert
Bush Administration Explanations for Pre-9-11 Warnings Fail the Smell Test
Warnings Received From Heads of State, Allied Intelligence
Services Specifically Warned of Suicide Attacks by Hijackers
Insider Trading Also Clearly Warned of Attacks
Never in the history of scandals involving the United States government has an attempt to conceal criminal conduct by an administration been more transparently dishonest or more easily exposed. On May 15 White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer -- while making the startling admission that President Bush received CIA and FBI intelligence briefings in August indicating Osama bin Laden might be planning hijackings -- told major news sources including CBS News, "All appropriate action was taken based on the threat information we had," Fleischer said. "The president did not -- not -- receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers."
In other statements Fleischer told the press, "The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9-11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile." According to a May 16 story by the New York Times, "Mr. Fleischer said the information given to the president in Texas [last August], had prompted the administration to put law enforcement agencies on alert."
Every major position taken by an administration in full retreat and on the defensive can be easily deconstructed and shown to be false.
For more than seven months FTW has been documenting specific warnings received by the U.S. government from both foreign intelligence services and, in one case, from Russian President Vladimir Putin, indicating commercial airliners were going to be used by terrorists to attack -- among other things -- the World Trade Center in the week of Sept. 9. In order for Fleischer's statement to be credible he would have to assert then that George W. Bush either ignored or was not informed of a direct warning from a head of state and also from the German intelligence service, the BND.
As reported in the German daily Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung (FAZ) on Sept. 14, the BND warned both the CIA and Israel in June that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." The story specifically referred to an electronic eavesdropping system known as Echelon, wherein a number of countries tap cell phone and electronic communications in partner countries and then pool the information. The BND warnings were also passed to the United Kingdom.
No known denial by the BND of the accuracy of this story exists, and the FAZ report indicates the information was received directly from BND sources.
According to a Sept. 14 report <http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/online_ie_story.html> in the Internet newswire online.ie, German police, monitoring the phone calls of a jailed Iranian man, learned the man was telephoning U.S. intelligence agencies last summer to warn of an imminent attack on the World Trade Center in the week of Sept. 9. German officials confirmed the calls to the U.S. government for the story but refused to discuss additional details.
According to a story in Izvestia on Sept. 12, Russian intelligence warned the U.S. last summer that as many as 25 suicide pilots were training for suicide missions involving the crashing of airliners into important targets.
In an MSNBC interview on Sept. 15, Russian President Putin stated he had ordered Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings before the attacks on Sept. 11. No credible information has emerged from any source indicating that Putin omitted the above information when issuing the warning.
Many other direct warnings were received by the U.S. government and have been documented in FTW's 9-11 timeline located here <http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html> .
These stories give the immediate lie to Fleischer's statements that Bush had no inkling of airliners being used as weapons.
But there is more.
In 1996 -- as reported by the German paper Die Welt on Dec. 6, and by Agence France Presse on Dec. 7 -- Western intelligence services, including the CIA, learned after arrests in the Philippines that Al Qaeda operatives had planned to crash commercial airliners into the Twin Towers. Details of the plan, as reported by a number of American press outlets, were found on a computer seized during the arrests. The plan was called "Operation Bojinka." Details of the plot were disclosed publicly in 1997 in the New York trial of Ramsi Youssef for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
FBI MEMOS TRIGGER WHITE HOUSE BACKSTEPPING
In "traditional" hijackings the hijackers have no need or desire to learn how to fly.
As reported by The New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post (among others) the events leading to Fleischer's statements were the recent disclosure of FBI memoranda originated by field agents in Arizona and Minnesota that warned of a possible hijack attempt by bin Laden's followers. In both cases the suspects were taking flight lessons.
According to Newsweek and The New York Times, FBI agents in Phoenix submitted a classified memorandum in July naming Osama bin Laden and tracking the activities of possible Middle Eastern terrorist suspects who had enrolled in local flight schools. The memo, according to the Times, stated bin Laden's followers "could use the schools to train for terror operations." The information in the Phoenix memo was not shared with FBI field agents in Minnesota who had uncovered other startling evidence.
Just days before the attacks in early-September, FBI agents in Minnesota wrote notes that subsequently became included in an internal FBI document warning that accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui "might be planning on flying something into the World Trade Center." A story from the May 20 issue of Newsweek by Michael Isikoff described how a local flight instructor had reported Moussaoui had "showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer [and not land] large airlinersŠThe [FBI] agents were 'in a frenzy, absolutely convinced he was planning to so something with a plane.'"
A multitude of sources have reported the FBI agents requested a warrant to search Moussaoui's personal computer but were denied by Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department. After the 9-11 attacks the computer was seized and found to contain information directly related to the World Trade Center attacks.
This apparent lack of support from within the administration is consistent with reports released last fall by the BBC's Gregg Palast showing that in January 2001 the Bush Administration had issued direct orders to the FBI to curtail investigations of two of Osama bin Laden's relatives, Omar and Abdullah bin Laden. The two bin Ladens had been connected to possible terrorist activities and were living in Falls Church, Va., near CIA headquarters.
APPROPRIATE WARNINGS?
Fleischer's statement that adequate warnings had been given to appropriate federal agencies falls flat on its face. Two of the most "appropriate" agencies would have been the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard.
As documented by researchers like Jared Israel at www.tenc.net <http://www.tenc.net/> it has been standard FAA procedure for more than 25 years to scramble U.S. fighters to intercept -- not shoot down -- any errant or non-responsive aircraft under FAA control. This protocol is even more stringent in the case of a hijacking. Yet, Vice President Dick Cheney and others have stated publicly there were no fighters available in some cases, and there was no heightened state of alert on Sept. 11. For 50 minutes on 9-11, in direct contravention of established policy, no fighters were scrambled to intercept two outstanding hijacked airliners even though it was known attacks were in progress.
Given the above information, it would have been an obvious move to have placed fighter aircraft on a heightened state of alert in this time period. This unresponsiveness stands in contrast to the fact that, in October 1999 at a time when there was no heightened alert, the ill-fated Lear Jet occupied by golfer Payne Stewart had an F-16 fighter and an A-10 attack aircraft flying beside it within minutes of losing radio contact and veering off course.
INSIDER TRADING
FTW has spent months on this important story that proves foreknowledge of the attacks by people who also profited from them. This was a glaring warning signal, since such trades ran the risk of being detected by intelligence agencies that routinely monitor all market activity in real time.
The insider trading involves the placement of large numbers of "put" options on stocks of companies directly affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. They include United Air Lines, American Air Lines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, AXA Reinsurance, Munich Reinsurance and Swiss Reinsurance. Put options are a leveraged bet that a stock's price will fall dramatically.
As CBS news noted on Sept. 26, the peak of trading activity occurred just before the attacks. There was a jump in United Air Lines put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between Sept. 6 and Sept.10, and 285 times higher than average on Sept. 6. Numbers for other affected stocks were equally alarming. It is uncontested that only United and American stocks had this level of put buying before the attacks. No other airlines were affected.
A May 13 story by the Washington Times' Insight Magazine attempted to explain the insider trading by stating higher numbers of put options had been placed on United and American stocks earlier in 2001. By relying only on the numbers of put options, Insight asserted that there was nothing unusual about the pre-9-11 trades.
However, FTW has contacted several experienced traders and reviewed existing documentation from financial experts, which indicate the alarm for insider trading is to look for any "imbalance" between the level of put options (a bet that a stock's price will fall) and the level of call options (a bet that a stock's price will rise). It is a significant imbalance in puts vs. calls that indicates criminal insider trading. The Insight piece did not address this point.
Several traders have stated that in a fairly flat market with high trading volumes, it has been a routine procedure for experienced traders to place roughly equal numbers of puts and calls on various stocks in order to generate a paper cash flow. They were quick to point out that by September, the market had gone into sharp decline and trading volumes were way down. Thus, lower numbers of put options did not mean that everything was normal. They stressed it was the imbalance in put-to-call ratios that signaled the insider trading. [Ed. Note: FTW has undertaken a more detailed investigation of this trading activity and hopes to have a more comprehensive report within 4-6 weeks].
Part of the problem in Insight's research stems from the fact that since Sept. 11, there has been no transparency from either the government or the financial sector on how the trades worked or how the markets tracked them. Secrecy is everywhere. Telephone calls have not been returned, and the government refuses to divulge any information about probes it admits are still ongoing. But simplistic dismissals from sources quoted in the Insight story contradict not only other evidence, but statements made by financial experts and major news sources just after the attacks.
"This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen in your entire lifeŠThis would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence," said Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, interviewed Sept. 20 on Good Morning Texas.
"'I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets,' said John Kinnucan, principal of Broadband Research, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle," reported the Montreal Gazette on Sept. 19.
To quote 60 Minutes from Sept. 19, "Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market."
Assertions that the reported number of puts involved were not abnormal also failed to analyze highly intricate shell games that involve the movement of put options to markets outside the U.S. or hidden in what traders refer to as "net positions." Serious financial experts have indicated the profits from insider trading could have been in the billions. Andreas von Bulow, a former member of the German parliament responsible for oversight of Germany's intelligence services, estimated the worldwide amount at $15 billion, according to Tagesspiegel on Jan. 13. Other experts have estimated the amount at $12 billion. CBS News gave a conservative estimate of $100 million.
A hasty conclusion reached by many is the insider trades were placed by bin Laden and his associates. Such a notion is flatly contradicted by the now absolute certainty that such insider trades would have -- and apparently did -- set off alarm bells. It makes little sense to argue bin Laden et al would have risked compromising at the last minute an operation planned in total secrecy for at least four years.
Also lacking credibility is the argument that many of the trades were what some brokers described as inconsequential amounts valued at $1 million or $2 million. This does not address the possibility that U.S. intelligence officials decided in a few cases to make a quick profit from attacks they knew were going to succeed. As distasteful as it may seem, this explanation is far more credible than an assumption that bin Laden made the trades himself and risked the exposure of what the world has been led to believe was his life's "masterpiece."
For more information on 9-11 insider trading please visit www.copvcia.com <http://www.copvcia.com/> .
The explanations offered by the Bush Administration over the last 48 hours will not withstand even the slightest scrutiny if a major press organization asks any question about the warnings received from credible foreign government sources and heads of state. Other questions must inevitably follow that will implode an oil dictatorship whose sins and crimes are exposed and just waiting for someone to pick them up and run with them.
On Saturday night, Michael Ruppert was set to be interviewed on the Fox News Channel by Geraldo Rivera, only to have the appearance cancelled at the last minute. His replacement, an ex-CIA man.
=============================================
INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
=============================================
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Independent Analysis for the Promotion
of Human Rights, Justice and Peace"
-------------------------------------------------------------
20th May 2002
OSAMAGATE BREAKS OPEN OVER 9/11 INTELLIGENCE FAILURE
THINK-TANK RELEASES EVIDENCE ON SEPTEMBER 11th TERRORIST ATTACKS
Dear Friends,
The recent controversy over "who knew what when on September 11" coincides with the release of a detailed 400-page study of the attacks on America, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, by a British political scientist at the Institute for Policy Research & Development (IPRD), documenting that the White House and the CIA must have known more than they admit. The author, the Institute's Executive Director Nafeez M. Ahmed, had this to add:
"Both the Democrats and the Republicans are playing political games. We need a 9/11 inquiry not to point fingers, but to understand why the U.S. intelligence community failed to act, in spite of specific information on an Al-Qaeda hijacking attempt in the U.S.A., and on suspected Al-Qaeda members training at U.S. flight academies. Why weren't these suspected terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden apprehended and interrogated?"
To help clarify the current debate, the Institute has published Chapter 4 of the study, 'Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures,' on the Internet at the Los Angeles-based Media Monitors Network (MMN). This meticulously researched paper on the warnings of the September 11th terrorist attacks received by U.S. intelligence, based on press reports and intelligence experts, is fully and freely available at:
'DID BUSH KNOW? WARNINGS SIGNS OF 9-11 AND INTELLIGENCE FAILURES'
Media Monitors Network (MMN), Los Angeles, 18th May 2002,
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
Ahmed, who was recently named a Global Expert on War, Peace and International Affairs by The Freedom Network of the Henry Hazlitt Foundation in Chicago, is a recognised authority on the September 11th terrorist attacks. His comprehensive study of the attacks, The War on Freedom, has been featured on national Canadian TV in a documentary series on September 11th by investigative journalist Barry Zwicker, an award-winning reporter on CBC-TV and CTV, and Producer and Host of MediaFile, Canadian Vision TV, http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/mediafile_Feb4.htm.
Although the paperback edition will be out in June 2002, the ebook has been released and can be purchased online. The paperback may be ordered in advance. For further information please see http://www.thewaronfreedom.com.
Please use this information as best you can in the struggle against injustice worldwide. We would greatly appreciate it if you forwarded this material - particularly our research paper 'Did Bush Know?' - to your friends, family and colleagues, in an effort to generate public awareness.
Thank you.
Institute for Policy Research & Development
Suite 414, 91 Western Road, Brighton,
East Sussex, BN1 2NW, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44(0)1273 32 95 30
Fax: +44(0)1273 70 60 30
Email: info@globalresearch.org
Web: http://www.globalresearch.org
See the new 9/11 study: http://www.thewaronfreedom.com
_____________________________________________
June 2002
Air Force colonel suspended after bad-mouthing Bush .
By KIM CURTIS Associated Press Writer
Published 2:00 p.m. PDT Tuesday, June 4, 2002
The Sacramento Bee
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/3106289p-4107890c.html
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A U.S. Air Force colonel who called President Bush "a joke" and accused him of allowing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to happen because "his presidency was going nowhere," has been suspended and could face a court-martial.
The letter from Lt. Col. Steve Butler, who was vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, was published May 26 in The (Monterey County) Herald.
"He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism," Butler wrote. "His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. ... This guy is a joke."
Butler, who called Bush's alleged silence "sleazy and contemptible," was suspended from his position on May 29 pending the outcome of an investigation into his remarks, Air Force spokeswoman Valerie Burkes said Tuesday. He remains assigned to the Defense Language Institute.
Butler, who entered active duty in April 1979, was a navigator during Desert Storm, Burkes said. His wife, Shelly, told The Herald that Butler plans to retire in a few weeks.
Military law specifically prohibits "contemptuous words against the president" and other political leaders. The prohibition against anti-government speech goes back to 1776, when soldiers were forbidden from using "traitorous or disrespectful words." The rules were updated several times and "traitorous or disrespectful" changed to "contemptuous." The president, vice president, Congress and state governors also were specifically banned as targets of bad-mouthing.
In 1950, Congress enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the prohibition against contemptuous language survived intact as Article 88, and, for the first time, applied only to commissioned officers.
The maximum punishment under Article 88 is dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for one year.
The only known Article 88 court-martial took place in the mid-1960s, according to an article by Lt. Col. Michael J. Davidson published in the July 1999 edition of "The Army Lawyer."
In that case, 2nd Lt. Henry Howe was charged with using contemptuous words against the president and conduct unbecoming an officer. On Nov. 6, 1965, Howe, dressed in civilian clothing during off-duty hours, left Fort Bliss and went to nearby El Paso, Texas, to participate in a demonstration against the Vietnam War.
Howe, who was turned in to military police by a gas station attendant who noticed an Army sticker on his vehicle, carried a sign that read "Let's Have More Than a Choice Between Petty Ignorant Fascists in 1968," and "End Johnson's Fascist Aggression in Vietnam."
He was convicted and sentenced to dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement at hard labor for two years.
"This kind of thing has happened repeatedly," Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, a Washington-based nonprofit group that advocates improvement in the military justice system, said Tuesday. "Clinton was repeatedly bad-mouthed."
In fact, an Air Force general was fined, reprimanded and forced into early retirement for referring to Clinton as "gay-loving," "womanizing," "draft-dodging" and "pot smoking," Ryan said.
Another Air Force general was reprimanded for telling an inappropriate joke about Clinton at an Air Force base in Texas. Two Marine Corps officers also were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful of the president. That led to military officials warning military members against engaging in similar conduct.
_____________________________________________
The Hindustan Times June 9, 2002
America warned two years ago over September 11: Report
London - Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6 warned the United States about terrorist plans to use civilian planes in "unconventional ways" two years before the September 11 strikes, a newspaper reported on Sunday.
In 1999, MI6 handed a secret report to liason staff at the US embassy in London after the intelligence service learned of such plans by followers of prime terror suspect Osama bin Laden, The Sunday Times said.
The information did not specify targets and would not necessarily have enabled US agencies to prevent the September 11 plane attacks on New York and Washington, the paper quoted intelligence sources as saying.
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have been sharply criticised for intelligence failures ahead of September 11, when hijacked planes were steered into the World Trade Center and Pentagon with the loss of some 3,000 lives.
The FBI has responded to accusations by recently unveiling a sweeping restructuring effort aimed at protecting the United States from future terrorist strikes.
Further details of MI6's warnings are expected to emerge during secret Congressional hearings into US intelligence failures later this week in Washington, it said.
"The Americans knew of plans to use commercial aircraft in unconventional ways, possibly as flying bombs," The Sunday Times quoted a senior Foreign Office source as saying.
AFP
_________________________________________________
June 2002
Firefighter Says Bombs Exploded Insided WTC
Yet more proof of an inside job in the attack on the WTC...a Senior New York Fireman confirms to an American Magazine that several bombs exploded inside the building on several floors...the WTC was designed to withstand a direct hit by a Boeing 707 so the bombs were needed to cause a dramatic collapse to shock and enrage the American Public....German Riechstag part two in America 2001. Stop the racist "war on the Third World" by the Banksters and Oil cartels of America: Check out the URL: http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html
_____________________________________________
June 2002
SEPTEMBER 11TH: US NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY HAD IT ON A PLATE
10th September 2001: "Tomorrow is zero hour" was one of the messages written in Arabic, received by the United States' National Security Agency (NSA). Nothing was done, despite the fact that this was not the only such message received by the NSA on that date.
The National Security Agency, based in Washington DC, received two messages in Arabic on 10th September, which were only translated and analysed on September 12th. The second was: "The match begins tomorrow", reflecting the customary references by Osama Bin Laden to his fight against the USA being like a game of football and his terrorists being his team.
If September 11th had been the first attack by Osama Bin Laden against US interests, the NSA could be excused for not having been able to know what it was receiving. However, it should be stated that the attack on the Twin Towers was yet another of a long line of terrorist attacks against the USA by Bin Laden and his hitherto-unknown network.
If the NSA did not act on the messages it intercepted, it could be argued that it is inefficient. The US administration has already stated that vital intelligence should have been shared between the various intelligence agencies. A pity it was not, because nearly 3,000 innocent civilians died.
The National Security Advisor to the President of the United States of America is Condoleeza Rice.
Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
PRAVDA.Ru
_____________________________________________________
June 21st, 2002
I wonder why ABC news is just now reporting this?
The White Van
Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?
June 21 &emdash; Millions saw the horrific images of the World Trade Center attacks, and those who saw them won't forget them. But a New Jersey homemaker saw something that morning that prompted an investigation into five young Israelis and their possible connection to Israeli intelligence.
Maria, who asked us not to use her last name, had a view of the World Trade Center from her New Jersey apartment building. She remembers a neighbor calling her shortly after the first plane hit the towers.She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know Š They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said. She found the behavior so suspicious that she wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police. Before long, the FBI was also on the scene, and a statewide bulletin was issued on the van. The plate number was traced to a van owned by a company called Urban Moving. Around 4 p.m. on Sept. 11, the van was spotted on a service road off Route 3, near New Jersey's Giants Stadium. A police officer pulled the van over, finding five men, between 22 and 27 years old, in the vehicle. The men were taken out of the van at gunpoint and handcuffed by police. The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens. 'We Are Not Your Problem'According to the police report, one of the passengers told the officers they had been on the West Side Highway in Manhattan "during the incident" &emdash; referring to the World Trade Center attack. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." The other passengers were his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. When the men were transferred to jail, the case was transferred out of the FBI's Criminal Division, and into the bureau's Foreign Counterintelligence Section, which is responsible for espionage cases, ABCNEWS has learned. One reason for the shift, sources told ABCNEWS, was that the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation. After the five men were arrested, the FBI got a warrant and searched Urban Moving's Weehawken, N.J., offices. The FBI searched Urban Moving's offices for several hours, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. The FBI also questioned Urban Moving's owner. His attorney insists that his client answered all of the FBI's questions. But when FBI agents tried to interview him again a few days later, he was gone. Three months later 2020's cameras photographed the inside of Urban Moving, and it looked as if the business had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse. The owner had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel. 'A Scary Situation'Steven Gordon, the attorney for the five Israeli detainees, acknowledged that his clients' actions on Sept. 11 would easily have aroused suspicions. "You got a group of guys that are taking pictures, on top of a roof, of the World Trade Center. They're speaking in a foreign language. They got two passports on 'em. One's got a wad of cash on him, and they got box cutters. Now that's a scary situation." But Gordon insisted that his clients were just five young men who had come to America for a vacation, ended up working for a moving company, and were taking pictures of the event. The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally. Two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them to be deported. But sources told ABCNEWS that FBI and CIA officials in Washington put a hold on the case. The five men were held in detention for more than two months. Some of them were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days, and some of them were given as many as seven lie-detector tests. 'Plenty of Speculation'Since their arrest, plenty of speculation has swirled about the case, and what the five men were doing that morning. Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives. Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS, said federal authorities' interest in the case was heightened when some of the men's names were found in a search of a national intelligence database. Israeli Intelligence Connection?According to Cannistraro, many people in the U.S. intelligence community believed that some of the men arrested were working for Israeli intelligence. Cannistraro said there was speculation as to whether Urban Moving had been "set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area, particularly in the New Jersey-New York area." Under this scenario, the alleged spying operation was not aimed against the United States, but at penetrating or monitoring radical fund-raising and support networks in Muslim communities like Paterson, N.J., which was one of the places where several of the hijackers lived in the months prior to Sept. 11. For the FBI, deciphering the truth from the five Israelis proved to be difficult. One of them, Paul Kurzberg, refused to take a lie-detector test for 10 weeks &emdash; then failed it, according to his lawyer. Another of his lawyers told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country. Sources say the Israelis were targeting these fund-raising networks because they were thought to be channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, groups that are responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Israel. "[The] Israeli government has been very concerned about the activity of radical Islamic groups in the United States that could be a support apparatus to Hamas and Islamic Jihad," Cannistraro said.The men denied that they had been working for Israeli intelligence out of the New Jersey moving company, and Ram Horvitz, their Israeli attorney, dismissed the allegations as "stupid and ridiculous." Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, goes even further, asserting the issue was never even discussed with U.S. officials."These five men were not involved in any intelligence operation in the United States, and the American intelligence authorities have never raised this issue with us," Regev said. "The story is simply false." No 'Pre-Knowledge'Despite the denials, sources tell ABCNEWS there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies. Many U.S. government officials still believe that some of them were on a mission for Israeli intelligence. But the FBI told ABCNEWS, "To date, this investigation has not identified anybody who in this country had pre-knowledge of the events of 9/11." Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted. As to what they were doing on the van, they say they read about the attack on the Internet, couldn't see it from their offices and went to the parking lot for a better view. But no one has been able to find a good explanation for why they may have been smiling with the towers of the World Trade Center burning in the background. Both the lawyers for the young men and the Israeli Embassy chalk it up to immature conduct. According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal &emdash; and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home. While the former detainees refused to answer ABCNEWS' questions about their detention and what they were doing on Sept. 11, several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." ABCNEWS' Chris Isham, John Miller, Glenn Silber and Chris Vlasto contributed to this report.
ABCNEWS.com : Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies? <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html>
_____________________________________________
June 22nd, 2002. The Missing Link.
Was it an intelligence failure' to give red carpet treatment to the 'money man' behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply 'routine'?
POLITICAL DECEPTION: THE MISSING LINK BEHIND 9-11
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Outlook, No. 2. Summer 2002 at http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca <http://www.globalresearch.ca/> , 20 June 2002
The URL of this article is http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html
The foreknowledge issue is a Red Herring: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."
ON May 16th The New York Post dropped what appeared to be a bombshell: "Bush Knew . . . " Hoping to score politically, the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, pressuring the White House to come clean on two "top-secret documents" made available to President Bush prior to September 11, concerning "advance knowledge" of Al Qaeda attacks. Meanwhile, the U.S. media had already coined a new set of buzzwords: "Yes, there were warnings" and "clues" of possible terrorist attacks, but "there was no way President Bush could have known" what was going to happen. The Democrats agreed to "keep the cat inside the bag" by saying: "Osama is at war with the U.S." and the FBI and the CIA knew something was cooking but "failed to connect the dots." In the words of House Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt:
"This is not blame-placing. . . . We support the President on the war against terrorism have and will. But we've got to do better in preventing terrorist attacks." 1
The media's spotlight on 'foreknowledge' and so-called "FBI lapses" served to distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as part of its covert operations.
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.
FEAR AND DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN
The Bush Administration through the personal initiative of Vice President Dick Cheney chose not only to foreclose the possibility of a public inquiry, but also to trigger a fear and disinformation campaign:
"I think that the prospects of a future attack on the U.S. are almost a certainty. . . . It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared." 7
What Cheney is really telling us is that our "intelligence asset", which we created, is going to strike again. Now, if this "CIA creature" was planning new terrorist attacks, you would expect that the CIA would be first to know about it. In all likelihood, the CIA also controls the so-called 'warnings' emanating from CIA sources on "future terrorist attacks" on American soil.
CAREFULLY PLANNED INTELLIGENCE OPERATION
The 9-11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. The evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-services Intelligence (ISI). Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA:
"With CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the ISI developed [since the early 1980s] into a parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government....The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers estimated at 150,000."8
The ISI actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a 'go-between' in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI directly supports and finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.
THE MISSING LINK
The FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC News (which went virtually unnoticed) that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan:
"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well . . . "Time Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind."9
The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]." 10 According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):
"The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism." 11
PAKISTAN'S CHIEF SPY VISITS WASHINGTON
Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind 9-11, was in the U.S. when the attacks occurred. He arrived on the 4th of September, one week before 9-11, on what was described as a routine visit of consultations with his U.S. counterparts. According to Pakistani journalist, Amir Mateen (in a prophetic article published on the September 10):
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return to CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan . . . and Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days." 12
Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Pervez Musharaf. General Mahmoud Ahmad, who became the head of the ISI, played a key role in the military coup.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE'S PRESS CONFERENCE
In the course of Condoleezza Rice's May 16 press conference (which took place barely a few hours after the publication of the "Bush Knew" headlines in The New York Post), an accredited Indian journalist asked a question on the role of General Mahmoud Ahmad:
Q: Dr. Rice?
Ms RICE: Yes?
Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the Administration?
Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.13
Although there is no official confirmation that General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice, she must have been fully aware of the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta, which had been confirmed by the FBI. Lost in the barrage of media reports on 'foreknowledge', this crucial piece of information, on the ISI's role in 9-11, implicates key members of the Bush Administration including: CIA Director George Tenet, Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, Under-Secretary, Marc Grossman, as well as Senator Sam Biden, Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee (who met General Ahmad on the 13th of September).14
The Bush Administration had not only provided red carpet treatment to the alleged "money man" behind the 9-11 attacks, it also had sought his 'cooperation' in the "war on terrorism". The precise terms of this 'cooperation' were agreed upon between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13. In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake of 9-11, to seek the 'cooperation' of Pakistan's ISI in "going after Osama", despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting the 9-11 terrorists. Contradictory? One might say that it's like "asking the Devil to go after Dracula."
CIA OVERSHADOWS THE PRESIDENCY
Dr. Rice's statement regarding the ISI chief at her May 16 press conference, is an obvious cover-up. While General Ahmad was talking to U.S. officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, he had allegedly also been in contact (through a third party) with the September 11 terrorists. What this suggests is that key individuals within the U.S. military-intelligence establishment knew about these ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist 'ring leader', Mohammed Atta, and failed to act. But this conclusion is, in fact, an understatement. Everything indicates that CIA Director George Tenet and ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad, had established a close working relationship. General Mahmoud had arrived a week prior to September 11 for consultations with George Tenet. Bear in mind that the CIA's George Tenet, also has a close personal relationship with President Bush. Prior to September 11, Tenet would meet the President nearly every morning at 8:00 a.m. sharp, for about half an hour. 15 A document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, or PDB, "is prepared at Langley by the CIA's analytical directorate, and a draft goes home with Tenet each night. Tenet edits it personally and delivers it orally during his early morning meeting with Bush." 16 This practice of "oral intelligence briefings" is unprecedented. Bush's predecessors at the White House, received a written briefing:
"With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA director in attendance, a strong relationship had developed. Tenet could be direct, even irreverent and earthy."17
THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR
Was it an 'intelligence failure' to give red carpet treatment to the 'money man' behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply 'routine'? At meetings of the National Security Council and in the so-called "War Cabinet", on September 11, 12 and 13, CIA Director George Tenet played a central role in gaining the Commander-in-Chief's approval to the launching of the "war on terrorism."
George W. Bush's Timeline September 11 (from 9.45am in the wake of the WTC-Pentagon Attacks to midnight)
Circa 9:45 a.m.: Bush's motorcade leaves the Booker Elementary School, Sarasota, Florida.
9:55 a.m: President Bush boards "Air Force One" bound for Washington.18 Following what was as a "false report" that Air Force One would be attacked, Vice-President Dick Cheney had urged Bush (10:32 a.m.) by telephone not to land in Washington. Following this conversation, the plane was diverted (10:41 a.m.) (on orders emanating from Washington) to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. A couple of hours later (1:30 p.m.), after a brief TV appearance, the President was transported to Offut Air Force base in Nebraska at U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters.
3:30 p.m.: A key meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) was convened, with members of the NSC communicating with the President from Washington by secure video.19 In the course of this NSC video-conference, CIA Director George Tenet fed unconfirmed information to the President. Tenet stated that "he was virtually certain that bin Laden and his network were behind the attacks. Š"20
The President responded to these statements, quite spontaneously, off the cuff, with little or no discussion and with an apparent misunderstanding of their implications. In the course of this video-conference (which lasted for less than an hour), the NSC was given the mandate by the Commander-in-Chief to prepare for the "war on terrorism". Very much on the spur of the moment, the "green light" was given by video conference from Nebraska. In the words of President Bush: "We will find these people. They will pay. And I don't want you to have any doubt about it." 21
4:36 p.m.: (One hour and six minutes later . . .) Air Force One departed for Washington. Back in the White House, that same evening (9:00 p.m.) a second meeting of the full NSC took place, together with Secretary of State Colin Powell who had returned to Washington from Peru. The NSC meeting (which lasted for half an hour) was followed by the first meeting of the so-called "war cabinet". The latter was made up of a smaller group of top officials and key advisers.
9:30 p.m.: At the war cabinet: "Discussion turned around whether bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same thing. Tenet said they were." 22 By the end of that historic meeting of the war cabinet (11:00 p.m.), the Bush Administration had decided to embark upon a military adventure which now threatens the collective future of humanity. our civilization.
DID BUSH KNOW?
Did Bush, with his minimal understanding of foreign policy issues, know all the details regarding General Mahmoud and the "ISI connection"? Did Tenet and Cheney distort the facts, so as to get the Commander-in-Chief's "thumbs up" for a military operation which was already in the pipeline? In a bitter irony, a meeting between Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and General Mahmoud, the 9-11 "money man", was scheduled at the State Department for the morning after September 11 to discuss their strategy.
NOTES
1. Quoted in AFP, 18 May 2002.
2. There are numerous documents, which prove beyond doubt the links between Al Qaeda and successive U.S. administrations. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html May 2002, section 3.
3. U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Republican Party Committee, Congressional Press Release, Congress, 16 January 1997, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html <http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html> See also Michel Chossudovsky, 'Osamagate', Centre for Research on Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html , 9 October 2001.
4. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, op. cit. section 3. See articles by Isabel Vincent, George Szamuely, Scott Taylor, Marina Domazetovska, Michel Chossudovsky, Umberto Pascali, Lara Marlowe and Macedonian dailies.
5. See Bin Laden Whereabouts Before 9-11, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html <http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html%A0> <http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html%A0> Alexandra Richard, The CIA met bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai, Le Figaro. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
6. The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002.
7. Fox News, 18 May 2002.
8. Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Outlook, No. 1, 2002.
9. Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.
10. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001. 11. AFP, 10 October 2001.
12. Amir Mateen, ISI Chief's Parleys continue in Washington, News Pakistan, 10 September 2001.
13. Federal News Service, 16 May 2002. Note that in the White House and CNN transcripts of Dr. Rice's press conference, the words "ISI chief" were transcribed respectively by a blank "--" and "(inaudible)" . Federal News Service Inc. which is transcription Service of official documents provided a correct transcription, with a minor error in punctua6tion, which we corrected. The White House transcript is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html> All three transcripts were verified by the author and are available on Nexus. Federal News Service documents are also available for a fee at http://www.fnsg.com/
14. New York Times, 14 September 2002,"According to Biden, [Ahmad] pledged Pakistan's cooperation".
15. The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, 17 May 2002.
16. Washington Post, 17 May 2002.
17. Washington Post 29 January 2002.
18. Washington Post, 27 January 2002.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
Copyright © Michel Chossudovsky and Global Outlook 2002. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the original source and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms, including commercial internet sites and excerpts, contact Global Outlook , at editor@globalresearch.ca
This article was published in Global Outlook , Issue No 2 9-11: Foreknowledge or Deception? Stop the Nuclear Threat. Now available. Details at http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html
Order by phone from publisher. Call (toll free) 1-888-713-8500. Mail-or Fax-in order form.
_____________________________________________
June 24th, 2002
S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11
BY DAVID KIEFER
Of The Examiner Staff
Stanley Hilton now figures his case is stronger because of a coalition of attorneys, victims' families and bipartisan legislators who gathered in Washington on Monday to condemn the government's lack of action in preventing the Sept. 11 attacks.
Hilton is the San Francisco attorney who filed a $7 billion lawsuit in U.S. District Court on June 3 against President Bush and other government officials for "allowing" the terrorist attacks to occur.
Among Hilton's allegations: Bush conspired to create the Sept. 11 attacks for his own political gain and has been using Osama bin Laden as a scapegoat.
Hilton said he has information that bin Laden died several years ago of kidney failure.
"I hope it will expose the fact that there are numbers of people in the government, including Bush and his top assistants, who wanted this to happen," Hilton said.
His class-action suit named 10 defendants, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Hilton said he represents the families of 14 victims and that 400 plaintiffs are involved nationwide.
White House spokesman Ken Macias and Department of Justice public affairs officer Charles Miller each said their departments were unaware of the lawsuit.
Hilton, Sen. Bob Dole's former aide, has been publicly critical of conservatives in books he has written about Dole and the Clinton sex scandal. Hilton, who said he has sources within the FBI, CIA, the National Security Agency and Naval intelligence, demands Bush's impeachment and believes the truth will come out in trial.
Hilton claims the Bush administration ignored intelligence information, refused to round up suspected terrorists beforehand, and during the hijackings refused to disable pilot controls and switch to a ground-based remote system.
He claims the government benefited from installing a puppet Afghan government friendly to U.S. oil interests.
Hilton also says Bush used bin Laden's antagonist image to create a public frenzy, which allowed the Bush administration to tighten its political grip.
_____________________________________________________
July 11th 2002
CounterPunch
An Interview with Tariq Ali
How the Bush Used 9/11 to Remap the World
Question: After the September 11th attack and its consequences in US and in the Middle East, do you believe the world is facing a state of war right now? Why (or why not)?
Tariq Ali: I think a war is going on in Afghanistan. Every week there are reports of casualties. Almost 2000 Afghan civilians have alreeady been killed, usually by 'accident'. Who mourns for them? Who builds memorials in their honour? Who cares about their families?
Simultaneously there is Sharon's war against the Palestinian nation, backed by the Bush administration. The American media is more biased than the Israeli press. It treats Israel as the victim. It ignores the fact that Israel provoked the suicie attacks by a systematic policy of assassinating Palestinian leaders. 'Operation Defensive Shield' is designed to crush the Palestinian resistance and destroy all hopes of a sovereign and independent Palestinian republic.. Leaving aside the moral abomination that this is and the double standards of the West, let's ask ourselves whether such actions will lead to a decrease or increase in acts of terrorism? Anyone capable of thinking independently knows the answer to this one.
Question: Along with Noam Chomsky, you are one of the English-language writers that criticizes most fiercely the U.S. government policies, particularly on the subject of security. In your opinion, how does the opposition (by which we mean the Left, not especially in the US but in the First World) view the Bush Administration?
Tariq Ali: I think that the Left, using the word in its broadest sense, is divided. Many intellectuals were panicked into supporting the 'war on terrorism'. Though a strong minority exists in the United States that opposes the new imperialism. In Europe there is a majority in Germany, Britain and Italy that is opposed to any new war on Iraq and many are now beginning to see that the US utilised 9/11 to re-map the world. So there is an opposition in the First World. In Britain at the moment 170 Members of Parliament (mainly Labour) have signed a public declaration against a war on Iraq.
Of course many of those who shifted allegiances to back Bush's war in Afghanistan -- the belligeratii -- are also in favour of a war against Iraq. Their favourite guru is the former Trotskyist Kanaan Makiya -- the Anglo-Iraqi writer touted by sycophants as the 'Alexander Solzhenitsyn of Iraq' -- wants his chums in the US State Department to take over Iraq and rule it.
Question: A few months ago, you went to the Bienal do Livro de Sao Paulo, to talk about the Brazilian edition of your latest book, The Clash of Fundamentalisms. Are you acquainted with how people in Latin American countries is reacting to this not-so-new World Order - especially Brazil, which current government is considered one of the most faithful followers of the neoliberalism?
Tariq Ali: My impression is that most of Latin America is deeply hostile to the New Order. South America has always been treated by the US as a 'co-prosperity sphere', ie, shamelessly exploited and under a permanent semi-occupation. So opposition to Washington in this region hardly comes as a surprise. Look at Argentina. A tragic outcome of neo-liberal economics. This country was the laboratary of market fundamentalism. The IMF mullahs followed its every turn. The US Treasury authorised its policies. The result? A total disaster.
This is what the PT in Brazil should be explaining to the people. Cardoso's policies could lead to a similar disaster in Brazil. I know perfectly well that Lula's options are restricted, but if he does nothing, the result will be a tragedy. The combination of an economic collapse and mass depoliticisation is the worst possible scenario. So the PT has to implement some radical reforms, especially in relation to health, education and the landless peasants.
Question: In some of the interviews you gave right after September 11th, you said that you didn't fear the U.S. government, but you feared the fundamentalists. Everyone knows, however, that this current "enemy of the free world" have already worked for the CIA and the Pentagon, and had its religious traits enhanced to attack and destroy. May the fundamentalism be used in both sides of this war, and until which point?
Tariq Ali: I think you must have misread some interview. I have always argued and this is the thesis of my book that the US Empire and its economic-military policies are the mother of all fundamentalisms. They have spawned the groups which they now fight.
Question: What can we expect of the conflicts between Jews and Palestinians in the near future? Are you pessimistic on this subject? That's why you put in your book that excellent interview with Isaac Deutscher, by the way?
Tariq Ali: I am not optimistic. How can one be when the war-criminal Sharon talks to US Senators about a hundred year war against the Arabs and an urgent need to transplant a million more Jews in Israel. This sonofabitch won't be around for much longer (even Zionists cannot overcome the laws of biology) but he wants to bequeath a legacy to the coming generations: war, war and more war. But the Palestinians will not give up their struggle for nationhood. Since 1948, all attempts to crush them, to obliterate their memory have failed.
The Oslo Accords created bantustans. The Palestinians rejected them. They will not accept a Palestinian which is an Israeli protectorate. So till the United States forces Israel to accept a two-state solution nothing much will change.
Question: In their book Empire, Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt didn't consider exactly the US as THE Empire itself, but merely a representation of it. Were they right?
Tariq Ali: EMPIRE is a very stimulating account of globalisation, but it is hopelessly wrong on two central issues. The state has not withered away. Strong states still exist---USA, China, Germany, etc----- but the difference with the past is that there is now only one Empire and this is not the nebulos entity imagined by Cultural Studies, but a real, living organism and it has a name; the United States of America..
Question: Assuming they weren't right on this point: can we live without the American Empire? Will we live without it someday?
Tariq Ali: Whether we will live without it is unlikely, but I hope our children and their children will. All Empires suffer from an invincibility complex, but when the end comes we see that it was unpredictable and it surprises everyone. In the case of the US it will probably be a combbination of internal and external factors, economic and military.
_____________________________________________
9-11: Israeli foreknowledge
http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/
January, 2000: A DEA government document later leaked to the press [DEA report, 6/01] suggests that a large Israeli spy ring starts penetrating the US from at least this time, if not earlier. This ring, which will later become popularly known as the "art student spy ring," is later shown to have strange connections to the events of 9/11. [Insight, 3/11/02]
February 6, 2000: India's largest newsweekly reports that it appears a recent Mossad attempt to infiltrate al-Qaeda failed when they were stopped by Indian customs officials on their way to Bangladesh. These 11 men appeared to be from Afghanistan, but had Israeli passports. One expert states, "It is not unlikely for Mossad to recruit 11 Afghans in Iran and grant them Israeli citizenship to penetrate a network such as Bin Laden's. They would begin by infiltrating them into an Islamic radical group in an unlikely place like Bangladesh." [The Week, 2/6/00] If this shows that Mossad was trying to infiltrate al-Qaeda, did they make other attempts that succeeded, and if so, is this how they learned enough to know where to trail al-Qaeda in the US via the "art student spy ring"?
April 19, 2000: USA Today states that "Israeli crime groups ... dominate distribution" of Ecstasy. [USA Today, 4/19/00] The DEA also states that most of the Ecstasy sold in the US is "controlled by organized crime figures in Western Europe, Russia and Israel." [UPI, 10/25/01] According to DEA documents, the Israeli "art student" spy ring " has been linked to several ongoing DEA [Ecstasy] investigations in Florida, California, Texas and New York now being closely coordinated by DEA headquarters." [Insight, 3/11/02] In addition to 9/11 connections explored later, was this spy ring meant to obstruct DEA prosecution of Israeli organized crime?
March 23, 2001: The Office of National Drug Control Policy issues a National Security Alert describing "apparent attempts by Israeli nationals to learn about government personnel and office layouts." This later comes to light through a leaked Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) document called "Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities ." A crackdown ensues and by June around 120 Israelis are apprehended. More are apprehended later. [Read the document here: DEA report, 6/01]
June, 2001: A 60 page internal memo on the Israeli "art student" spy ring is written by the DEA's Office of Security Programs. [Read the memo here: DEA report, 6/01] The memo is a compilation of dozens of field reports, and was meant only for the eyes of senior officials at the Justice Department (of which the DEA is adjunct), but it is leaked to the press around Dec. 2001. The report connects the spies to efforts to foil investigations into Israeli organized crime activity involving the importation of the drug Ecstasy. The spies also appear to be snooping on top secret military bases. For instance, on April 30, 2001, an Air Force alert was issued from Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City concerning "possible intelligence collection being conducted by Israeli Art Students." Tinker AFB houses AWACS surveillance craft and Stealth bombers. By the time of the report, the US has "apprehended or expelled close to 120 Israeli nationals" but many remain at large. [Le Monde, 3/5/02, Salon, 5/7/02]
June-September 10, 2001: An additional 20 or so Israeli spies are apprehended between June and 9/11. [Fox News, 12/12/01]
August, 2001: Two high ranking agents from the Mossad come to Washington and warn the FBI and CIA that as many as 200 terrorists have slipped into the US and are planning "a major assault on the United States." They say the attack is from bin Laden, and say indications point to a "large scale target", and that Americans would be "very vulnerable." [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In light of later revelations of a Mossad spy ring trailing numerous Muslim terrorists in the US, it is easy to see that Mossad would have known this info. Could this be later disinformation by the Mossad to spin the spy ring story, or it is another smoking gun showing extensive US foreknowledge?
September 10, 2001: An Army School of Advanced Military Studies issues a report written by elite US army officers, which is made public just prior to 9/11. The report gives the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01] After 9/11 and revelations of a large Mossad operating mysteriously in the US, could it be that the Mossad did in fact do just that on 9/11?
September 11, 2001: Two employees of Odigo, Inc. in Israel, one of the world's largest instant messaging companies, receive warnings of an imminent attack on the WTC around two hours before the first plane hits the WTC. Odigo has its headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo Research and Development offices in Israel where the warnings were received are located in Herzliyya, a suburb of Tel Aviv. Israeli security and the FBI were notified immediately after the 9/11 attacks began. The two employees claim not to know who sent the warnings. "Odigo service includes a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain interests or demographics. Diamandis [Odigo vice president of sales and marketing] said it was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message. [Ha'aretz, 9/26/01, Washington Post, 9/28/01] FTW Could the message have been a mass e-mail sent to a large group, with only two brave enough to admit receiving it? Could this be related to the "art student spy ring?" Did the original senders directly inform the FBI as well, and if not, why not?
September 11, 2001: The 9/11 attack: four planes are hijacked, two crash into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. At least 3,000 people are killed. A more detailed timeline focusing on the hours of this attack is given below. According to officials, the entire US is defended by only 14 fighters (2 planes each in 7 military bases). [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] And "they no longer included any bases close to two obvious terrorist targets - Washington, DC, and New York City." Says a defense official, "I don't think any of us envisioned an internal air threat by big aircraft. I don't know of anybody that ever thought through that." [Newsday, 9/23/01]
September 11, 2001: Five Israelis are arrested for "puzzling behavior" related to the WTC attacks. They are arrested around 4:30 P.M. after having filmed the burning WTC from the roof of their company's building near Liberty State Park, then shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. They were spotted by a neighbor who called the police and the FBI. The police tracked them down in a van with the words "Urban Moving Systems" written on the side. [Bergen Record, 9/12/01, Ha'aretz, 9/17/01] One man was found with $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, another had two passports on him, and a box cutter was found in the van. [ABC News, 6/21/02] Investigators say that "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted... It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen." [Bergen Record, 9/12/01] One of these Israelis later says, "Our purpose was to document the event." [ABC News, 6/21/02] The FBI later concludes at least two are agents for the Mossad and that all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. The FBI interrogates them for weeks. [Forward, 3/15/02] They hold them on immigration violation charges, before ultimately releasing them 71 days later. [ABC News, 6/21/02] Their names are later identified as Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel. [Forward, 3/15/02]
September 11 , 2001: A leaked FAA memo written on the evening of 9/11 suggests a man on Flight 11 was shot and killed by a gun before the plane crashed into the WTC. [See the FAA memo, originally posted at World Net Daily] The "Executive Summary," based on information relayed by a flight attendant to the American Airlines Operation Center, stated "that a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B at 9:20 a.m. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin, shot by passenger Satam Al Suqami." The FAA claims that the document is a "first draft," declining to release the final draft, as it is "protected information." A report in Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz on Sept. 17 identifies Lewin as a former member of the Israel Defense Force Sayeret Matkal, Israel's most successful special-operations unit [UPI, 3/6/02]. It is a deep-penetration unit that has been involved in assassinations, the theft of foreign signals-intelligence materials, and the theft and destruction of foreign nuclear weaponry. Sayeret Mat'kal is best known for the 1976 rescue of 106 passengers at Entebbe Airport in Uganda. [New Yorker, 10/29/01] Officials later deny the gun story and suggest that Lewin was probably just stabbed to death instead (which would still be very interesting). [UPI, 3/6/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02] Note that Lewin founded Akamai, a successful computer company, and his connections to Sayeret Mat'kal remained hidden until the gun story came to light. [Guardian, 9/15/01] What are the odds that an Israeli counter-terrorist expert would just happen to be sitting next to the terrorists on this flight, who then somehow knew to kill him?
September 14, 2001 (approx.): According to Seymour Hersh of New Yorker magazine, a few days after September 11th, members of the elite Israeli counter-terrorism unit Sayeret Matkal arrive in the US and begin training with US special forces in a secret location. The two groups are developing contingency plans to attack Pakistan's military bases and remove their nuclear weapons if the Pakistani government or the nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands. [New Yorker, 10/29/01] The Japan Times later notes that this "threat to divest Pakistan of its 'crown jewels' was cleverly used by the US, first to force Musharraf to support its military campaign in Afghanistan, and then to warn would-be coup plotters against Musharraf." [Japan Times, 11/10/01] Note the curious connection between Sayeret Matkal and one of the 9/11 flight passengers (see September 11, 2001)
September 14, 2001: Dominick Suter, owner of the company Urban Moving Systems, flees the country to Israel. The FBI later tells ABC News that "Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation." He has been tied to the 5 Israeli agents caught filming the WTC attack. The FBI had questioned Suter around the 12th, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. But when they returned a few days later, Suter is gone (see September 11, 2001). [Forward, 3/15/02, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, 12/13/01, ABC News, 6/21/01]
September 29-30, 2001: Police in the Midwest stop six men containing suspicious documents, and then release them. They possess photos and descriptions of a nuclear power plant in Florida and the Trans-Alaska pipeline, and also have "box cutters and other equipment." All six also have Israeli passports. They are let go after their passports are shown to be valid, but before anyone interviews them. The FBI is reportedly furious about their release. [Miami Herald, 10/3/01, Knight Ridder, 10/31/01, London Times, 11/2/01] Again, it appears they may have been Mossad agents. In addition to snooping on the DEA and Muslim terrorists, some Mossad agents in the "art student" spy ring have been caught trying to break into military bases and other top secret facilities. [Salon, 5/7/02] Perhaps they were gathering information, not planning a hijack, and the box cutters were to break open locks?
October 16, 2001: A Philadelphia newspaper later reports that two men are arrested on this day, after being found with a detailed video of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Their names are identified as Moshe Elmakias and Ron Katar. In addition, a woman named Ayelet Reisler is found with them, who has conflicting identification information. They were arrested for illegal dumping, using a van with the name Moving Systems Incorporated. Given the moving van element, and the typically Jewish names, it is likely these three are part of the Israeli spy ring. The video contains extensive zoom in shots of the Sears Tower. [Philadelphia Mercury, 10/18/01] Could they have been videotaping the Sears Tower on 9/11 in the expectation that it would be hit by a plane? Had Flight 93 not been delayed 40 minutes on the runway and stayed on course, it would have been near Chicago at the same time as the other attacks, and it turned towards Washington 20 minutes after the FAA informed the military that the plane had been hijacked.
November 20, 2000: The 5 Israelis arrested on 9/11 for videotaping the WTC attack and then cheering about it are released and return to Israel. Some of the men's names appeared in a US national intelligence database, and the FBI concluded that at least two of the men were working for the Mossad, according to ABC News. But the FBI says that none of them had any advanced knowledge on the 9/11 attacks, and they were released as part of a deal between the US and the Israel government. After their release they claim to have been tortured (see September 11, 2001). [Forward, 3/15/02, ABC News, 6/21/02]
November 23, 2001: The Washington Post reports, "At least 60 young Israeli Jews have been arrested and detained around the country on immigration charges since the Sept. 11 attacks, many of them held on US government officials' invocation of national security." An INS official who requested anonymity says the use of the term "special interest" for Israelis being held in Cleveland, St. Louis and other places means the case in question is "related to the investigation of September 11th." [Washington Post, 11/23/01] Doesn't this appear to be more "art school" spy ring activity?
December 12, 2001: Fox News publishes a remarkable report about the Israeli "art student" spy ring. The report mentions that at least 60 more Israelis have been detained or arrested since 9/11 and this date. "There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it." When a governmental source is asked if the Israeli spies knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened, he responds "The principal question is 'how could they have not known?'" "Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying ... is considered career suicide." A highly placed investigator says there are 'tie-ins' between the spy ring and 9/11. But when asked for details, he flatly refuses to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'" Doesn't that sound like someone trying to convey a read-between-the-lines message? The report also reveals that Amdocs, an Israeli company, is recording virtually every phone call in the US and could be passing information on to the Israeli government. Fox News suggests they might be using this position to impede the 9/11 investigation. [Fox News, 12/12/01]
December 16, 2001: The Fox News report on the "art student" spy ring is taken down only two days after being put up, in response to pressure from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) and others. CAMERA for instance, suggests the reporter "has something, personally, about Israel... Maybe he's very sympathetic to the Arab side." Yet there doesn't appear to be any substance to these personal attacks. The story continues to be mostly ignored by the mainstream media, but the Fox story makes a big impact inside the US government. For instance, an internal DEA communiqué from Dec. 18 mentions the Fox report by name, and warns of security breaches in telecommunications as described in the Fox report. [Salon, 5/7/02]
March 5, 2002: Le Monde and Jane's Intelligence Digest discover by this time that many spies in the uncovered Israeli spy ring seemed to have been trailing the 9/11 hijackers. For instance, five of the Israeli spies are intercepted in the tiny town of Hollywood, Florida, and four 9/11 hijackers are known to have spent time in Hollywood, Florida. [Le Monde, 3/5/02, Reuters, 3/5/02, Jane's Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02] In one case, some Israeli spies lived at 4220 Sheridan Street, Hollywood, only a few hundred feet from where Mohammed Atta was living at 3389 Sheridan Street. Israeli spies appear to have been close to at least 10 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. [Salon, 5/7/02]
March 6, 2002: The Washington Post runs a story completely denying the existence of any Israeli spy ring. It opens with official denials from a "wide array of US officials" and quotes Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden as saying, "This seems to be an urban myth that has been circulating for months. The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage." [Washington Post, 3/6/02] The New York Times fails to cover the story at all, even months later. [Salon, 5/7/02] By mid-March, Jane's, the respected British intelligence and military analysis service, notes: "It is rather strange that the US media seems to be ignoring what may well be the most explosive story since the 11 September attacks -- the alleged breakup of a major Israeli espionage operation in the USA." [Jane's Intelligence Digest, 3/13/02]
March 11, 2002: A newspaper reports that the DEA study on Israeli "art students" determined the "students" all had "recently served in the Israeli military, the majority in intelligence, electronic signal intercept or explosive ordnance units." [Palm Beach Post, 3/11/02]
March 15, 2002: Forward, a major US publication targeting the Jewish audience, admits that there has been an Israeli spy ring in the US. But, they say, "far from pointing to Israeli spying against US government and military facilities, as reported in Europe last week, the incidents in question appear to represent a case of Israelis in the United States spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism." [Forward, 3/15/02]
May 7, 2002: Salon reports on the Israeli "art student" ring. All the "students" claim to have come from either Bezalel Academy, or the University of Jerusalem. A look in the Bezalel database shows that not a single one of them appear to have attended school there. There is no such thing as the University of Jerusalem. In fact, the article points out that the sheer sloppiness and brazenness of the spy operation appears to be a great mystery, especially since the Mossad is renowned as one of the best spy agencies in the world. One government source suggests a theory to Salon that the "art students" were actually a smoke screen. They were meant to be caught and connected to DEA surveillance so that a smaller number of spies also posing as art students could complete other missions. One such mission could have been the monitoring of al-Qaeda terrorists. [Salon, 5/7/02] Shortly afterwards, a major Israeli newspaper publishes a story about the spy ring, but doesn't come to any conclusions. [Ha'aretz, 5/14/02] Could it be that Israel assisted the US in keeping an eye on the terrorists, thus allowing the US to maintain plausible deniability and a detachment if there were investigations on what the US knew?
May 7, 2002: In the middle of the night a moving truck is pulled over for speeding in Oak Harbor, Washington, near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. The base is the home of the advanced electronic warfare Prowler jets. A bomb-sniffing dog detects explosives on one of the men and inside the truck. High-tech equipment is then later used to confirm the presence of TNT on the gearshift and RDX plastic explosive on the steering wheel. Both men turn out to be Israeli (one with an altered passport), and in the country illegally. [Fox News, 5/13/02] However, later the FBI clears the two men, saying both the dog and the tests just detected false positives from "residue left by a cigarette lighter." [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/14/02, Jerusalem Post, 5/14/02] The "art student spy ring" frequently uses moving vans as cover, and has been caught spying on the most top secret military bases. [Salon, 5/7/02] In a possibly related story, the Seattle FBI office that handled this case appears to have been broken into a few weeks later, and even a room containing evidence was penetrated. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 7/29/02] Does it not appear that the spy ring is still active, and the FBI is covering up for them and releasing them, no matter what they're caught doing? Why?
_____________________________________________
September 2002
Workers Party of Belgium
wpb@wpb.be , www.wpb.be <http://www.wpb.be>
The Workers Party Belgium would like to draw your attention to an important book, which analyses the trend of American imperialism towards war, in the light of the events of September 11, 2001. The book will come out on September 6, 2002 in Dutch and in French.
September 11. Why they didn't stop the hijackers
By Peter Franssen and Pol De Vos
More than two months before the fateful day of September 11, the CIA knew the Al-Qaeda network of Osama Ben Laden was preparing attacks on the United States. Five foreign intelligence agencies had warned the Americans. The German BND, for example, told them literally: "Terrorists from the Middle East plan to hijack airplanes to attack important symbols of the United States".
The CIA and Bush did nothing. They gave a clear field to Bin Laden, a man with a long career in the service of the CIA. Even worse, dozens of indications are now surfacing to prove the intelligence agencies followed the hijackers closely and knowingly let them go ahead.
In the haystack of the ruins of September 11, Peter Franssen has looked for the needle: the result is an impressive collection of facts.
The United States have frequently used terrorism as a military strategy, a doctrine which makes sense of certain complicities. September 11 was the indispensable shock if the American people were to accept new wars against all countries that refuse American hegemony.
Contents:
1. The CIA knew who, what, where and how. Or how the American intelligence agencies were warned of the attacks to come long in advance. How they knew the hijackers. How they could have arrested them. How they gave them a clear field on September 11, 2001.
2. Bin Laden and the United States: the holy alliance. Or how Afghanistan has been an American goal for half a century. How Osama bin Laden rallied the war run by America against the USSR. How the CIA created and guided the Taliban. How it propagated and used Islamic fundamentalism . How Bin Laden and the United States fought side by side in the Balkans, in Chechnya and in Central Asia till... 2002.
3. State terrorism, a strategy made in the USA. Or how the US Army General Staff planned terrorist attacks aiming at its own population. How terror has imbued the strategy and the structure of the American army since World War II. How the United States led terrorist campaigns in Asia, Europe and Latin America.
4. Who benefited from the September 11 attacks ? Or how September 11 caused a reversal of public opinion in the United States. How the attacks united the political elite around a single goal: war in the entire world. How the economy and public opinion have taken a military direction. How the Defence budget has made a huge leap forward. How democratic rights, already restricted, are losing more ground.
5. America's ultimate war. Or how the United States planned the war against the Taliban, well before September 11. How America already considers China as its biggest enemy. How it destabilizes Russia. How the Americans invented the notion of "rogue states". How the contradictions between Europe and the United States are increasing. How, throughout the world, a large front against war is coming into being.
Peter Franssen, (1952) is a journalist. He became famous with his first book The money of the PSC-CVP (in Dutch and French, EPO 1984), about the financing of the electoral campaigns of the Belgian Christian Democratic party and with his revelation that police officer Demol of Schaerbeek (Brussels) had been a member of neo-fascist organisations. He works for Solidaire, the weekly paper of the Workers Party of Belgium.
Pol De Vos (1960) is president of the Anti-Imperialist League (Brussels) and member of the Central Committee of the Workers Party of Belgium. He is co-author of NGOs, Missionaries of the New Colonisation (in Dutch, EPO 1994) and Globalisation and Health (in Dutch and French, EPO - Marxist Studies 2002).
EPO Publications
Lange Pastoorstraat 25-27
B-2600 Berchem-Antwerp (Belgium)
Tel: +32 (0)3 287 08 75
Fax: +32 (0)3 218 46 04
E-mail: jos.hennes@epo.be
Web: www.epo.be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorism commission caves in to White House over 9/11 documents.
By Patrick Martin
24 November 2003
The independent commission charged with investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington has backed down in the face of White House intransigence and agreed to let the Bush administration determine what information it will turn over to the panel.
An agreement reached November 13 between the White House and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States provides very limited access to the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs), the daily summaries of all US intelligence reporting that are the most important documents being withheld from the commission.
<