Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 728 Location: Surfing The Waves
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject:
This is an excerpt from an article written from Pakistan, which show what some people are experiencing in the aftermath of Bhutto's murder.
Many people here seriously doubt the supposed Al-Qaeda link; it's too easy to blame the same suspects for every act of violence here. One can blame Musharraf's government for failing to provide adequate security at the rallies, for declaring emergency and the general instability it has created. But people in Pakistan -- intellectuals, the educated cadres -- are angry at another party too, the U.S. government.
People talk about how the U.S. government "engineered" Bhutto's return to Pakistan, forcing Musharraf to drop corruption charges against her, even though he was unwilling to do so (while Nawaz Sharif did not receive the same treatment). Bhutto as well as Musharraf knew of the dangers involved in her return -- in the compromise she struck with Musharraf; in her open support for U.S. policies; and in what she would do if she were prime minister. Yet she invited danger by sticking her head out of her armored vehicle at the rally in Liaquat Bagh yesterday, the same place where Pakistan's first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951.
And now that the country seems to have descended into chaos, many Pakistanis feel that other parties may have something to gain -- Musharraf's opponents within the country, for instance, or even the U.S. for an opportunity to intervene more directly in the affairs of this strategic Muslim-majority nuclear power.
As I speak, the city of Karachi is in flames. The army has been called in, and a friend in Karachi feels a Musharraf-PPP showdown is looming in the city. The PPP, now under the control of Benazir's husband Asif Zardari, feels invincible because of its loss. "Any voice of criticism against the PPP (in Karachi) is like signing your death warrant," my friend says.
My cousin's wedding, scheduled for tomorrow at a big banquet hall in a fancy hotel, is now canceled, replaced by a small reception at their home.
We are sick and tired of politics. We don't care who's ruling anymore -- we just want peace.
And we need prayers for Pakistan -- prayers and positive support.
The Pakistani people are really strange, to say the least. All the strife in the country and they appoint a nineteen year old boy to lead the opposition party, just because he is a Bhutto! They don’t have experienced grown MEN and Woman to do the job?
It is clear that they are afraid and intimidated by the Islamic jihadist ( as well they should be, for they are blood thirsty murderers) and if they think they aren’t so bad, then let them have a government like the Theocracy in Iran, and soon they will be crying for Musharraf to return.
There are no good guys in this fight, only lesser of evils.
I'm very saddened by the contrasting look of sheer joy on the faces of Bhutto supporters contrasted with the sheer grief following. You have all my sympathies.
I dont see any "strangeness" here in the Pakistani people regarding the Bhutto/Bhutto transition, no more than JFK/RFK, of which details show they were killed by a conspiracy of roughly the same people as those in power in the US now, almost 50 years ago. Oswald's FBI payroll number was 178, and he had a CIA employee number I do not recall at the moment. This was revealed by some high Dallas officials, according to Ralph Schoenman in his talk on The Nation Magazine, the CIA on the board of that publication, and the task of keeping up the Warren Report.
The crux of it is that Musharraf's security people assigned to protect Bhutto was headed by his close personal friend Brig Eliz Shah, formerly ISI now tangential Intelligence team, who himself was/is OBL's handler, as well as close personal friend of Mullah Omar of the Taliban, and close personal friend Omar Sheik who was allegedly responsible for kidnapping WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl and slitting his throat.
Combine this with what is known and published (even by the CFR itself) about ISI being a home base of Al-Qaeda/Mujahideen operations, in the past tense they say, and published elsewhere about the ISI (like many other Intelligence agencies including Mossad and Shin Bet) being founded by CIA, and there's a shadowy direct link between Washington/Langley and the bullet.
One security cordon was Bhutto's people surrounding her. It was airtight.
The other was the Intell and Security Police cordon on the outskirts which permitted the bombers to get through without being frisked, during the earlier assassination attempt. This was the one run by the former ISI guy, sponsored by CIA, friend of Musharraf, friend of OBL, friend of the Taliban, friend of Omar Sheik.
To me, the assassination could not be any plainer, nor all the murky reasons for it.
Lest anyone think that the USA is NOT bent on Organized Chaos or managed chaos, you should read The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski, and read about the "Arc of Conflict" and "global zone of percolating violence" and how this was intended to be used in America's chessboard strategy of selective destabilization,
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
This is not conspiracy theory. This is policy. I consider it the policy of not only one man, but of the entire Rockefeller-created Tri-Lateral Commission (co-founded by Brzezinski), the Rockefeller-dominated CFR, the Rockefeller-founded United Nations (historically, true!), the Baker-Bush Boys, and the G8/G20 leaders globally who are "on board" with Corporate Globalization and Neo-Liberal Capitalism (i.e. "free trade" regulations) with the IMF, World Bank, BIS, etc.
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)
"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)
"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)
"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)
This leads to the nagging question of WHO is SERVED by Osama Bin Laden? I think it is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone paying attention that it is NOT the Arabic, Muslim, or "Eurasian" people, but rather Washington. It's almost as if America created Al-Qaeda. Oh wait, we did.
Last edited by dilbert_g on Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:29 am; edited 4 times in total
f you believe the rumors that zip around Pakistan in the aftermath of one of the country's depressingly regular outbreaks of violence, it's all America's fault. Or India's. Or Israel's. Or it's those Afghan-based militia who keep sneaking across the border. Fueled by cheap cell phone calls and the rise of 24-hour television news channels, gossip about who is to blame for Pakistan's woes runs from the reasonable to the ridiculous.
In the 24 hours since a lone attacker assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the rumor mill has again been working overtime. In Karachi, amid reports of rioting and sabotage, stories circulated that the city's water supply had been poisoned and people were afraid to drink it. There were also the conflicting accounts of how Bhutto died — from bullet wounds or from a bomb blast that followed or from fracturing her skull against her car's sun-roof as the assailant blew himself up. In the confusion of reports, many Pakistanis are pointing the finger of blame at President Pervez Musharraf and his allies in Washington.
There is no evidence to suggest that Musharraf or Pakistan's security forces were connected to the attack. On jihadi websites, al-Qaeda claimed the assassination was their work and intelligence officials in both Pakistan and the U.S. agree that Islamic extremists from al-Qaeda or the Taliban were probably responsible for the devastating attack. But as Musharraf's popularity has slipped badly, moderate and religious Pakistanis alike have begun to blame him for the increasing chaos in their country — and to trace every incident directly to his rule and his high-profile allies. "This assassination was fabricated by the present government," says Liaqat Baloch, a senior official in Jamaat-e-Islami, one of Pakistan's main Islamic parties. "It is part of the American strategy to scare people that Pakistan is falling apart."
At a time when Pakistan does indeed seem to be falling apart, it may seem absurd and even pointless to repeat such allegations. But the sentiments provide a powerful insight into how angry Pakistanis are at their President and how mistrustful they are of the U.S. At the least, says retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, the former director general of Pakistani intelligence organization Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), "it's very convenient for the security forces to call it a suicide bomber because they can cover up the possibility someone else was behind the attack." Gul, who has become a harsh critic of Musharraf over the past year, believes America is partly responsible for its current predicament. "If America continues to act selfishly and unwisely, well, there is hardly any good that has come out [of their help] either for the U.S. or Pakistan, and this will continue."
[As ISI chief, Gul helped run the Afghan mujahideen as a force to counter and eventually defeat the Soviet Union in the 1980s; later he helped establish the Taliban in Afghanistan. He also organized the guerrillas fighting the Indian army in the sections of Kashmir held by New Delhi.]
With such mistrust, rumors thrive. On the streets of Lahore Friday afternoon, many blamed Musharraf and the U.S. rather than Islamic extremists for Bhutto's demise. White-haired Mohamed Sharif, 61, who runs a sidewalk barber's shop using a rusty old metal table and a worn mirror, says the "rumor is that America is involved in this with Musharraf's help." A passerby butts in with his agreement: "America and the government are in the same direction, they are allies," says Sabir Hussain. "If the government is doing this it is on the order of America."
Lahore is a stronghold of opposition leader and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and is home to plenty of Bhutto supporters as well. In a place that's so heavily anti-Musharraf, innuendo seems to feed on itself. On the city's main street, lined with policemen holding batons and wearing anti-riot gear, two teenagers out for a walk say they have also heard about a possible government connection to the attack but cannot offer any evidence to back up the claims. "My mother told me not to talk about this topic on my mobile or telephone because the government may tape it," says Hafiz Jamshaid, 18, a computer science student at a local college.
Across town, in a park in the tony neighborhood known as Defense Housing Authority, or DFA, four business associates discussed Pakistan's future after their regular afternoon walk. "People are afraid to air their opinions but as far as I know America sent Benazir and later killed her with the help of Pervez Musharraf," says M.A. Mohamed, who runs a car parts company. "I can confirm this idea." His friend and colleague Talat Mumtaz interjects: "No, no. no, America likes Benazir. Why would they kill her? You're being ridiculous."
"No one knows what are the facts," complains Constable Jafar Hamid, proudly showing off his English as he guards a McDonald's outlet, closed against possible rioting. So where do all the rumors come from? "We don't believe in one thing, we don't think like a nation," he says. "Everybody has his own opinion and that is part of the problem." With reporting by Khuda Yar Khan/Islamabad
I would have more doubts if the security forces that Musharraf assigned to protect her were not known to be deeply associated with Al-Qaeda forces, and were it not for silence from the US media about this.
Ralph Schoenman has mentioned Gul Hamid in the past. I think in reference to Hamid's revealing remarks about Sept 11. So there's TWO Al-Qaeda guys, one partly exposing the obvious truth, another seemingly embedded with Musharraf.
Strange. I think that the "friend" who thinks that America loved Bhutto has not read The Grand Chessboard.
That's another reason she had to go. You can't have leaders willing to tell the truth.
Bhutto also told the world that Osama was alive shortly before and one day after the David Frost interview...
Mush's toppling, not a nightmare for West: Bhutto
9 Jun 2007 (The Times Of India)
"If the Taliban are eliminated, or if their poster-boy Osama bin Laden is caught, the international cries for restoration of democracy will only deepen"
Bhutto Would Let U.S. Target Bin Laden
Pakistan Opposition Leader Benazir Bhutto Would Accept U.S. Aid in Targeting Osama Bin Laden
Oct 1, 2007 (AP)
"If there is overwhelming evidence, I would hope that I would be able to take Osama bin Laden myself without depending on the Americans,"
November 3, 2007, a day after the David Frost interview...
Benazir Bhutto Reacts To State Of Emergency; Crisis Of Violence In Pakistan
Aired November 3, 2007
"I don't think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the '80s."
No conspiracy there, dood.
She simply misspoke. She meant to say Daniel Pearl, who was killed by Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to the official line. FYI he's been in prison since February 2002.
Yeh but it is strange how the interview on the BBC website has that specific part edited out dont you think?
Hi Useful Eater. In order to save me some 'typing it all out again time' I'll repost what I just posted on 911Blogger....
Bhutto is on record shortly before AND AFTER the David Frost interview acknowledging that bin Laden is alive.
One day after the Frost interview on November 3, 2007, Bhutto was asked by CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield if she blamed General Pervez Musharraf for helping to produce safe havens in Pakistan, where "Osama bin Laden, the most-wanted terrorist in the world, just might be taking refuge?"
Bhutto's answer to this was...
"I wouldn't like to go so far as to blame General Musharraf directly, but I would certainly say that many people in his administration and his security apparatus responsible for internal security make me feel very uneasy. And I believe that tribal areas of Pakistan could not have become safe havens without collusion of some of the elements in the present administration. And this is why I believe that regime change is very important."
Bhutto was then asked by Whitfield...
"Do you think General Musharraf knows where Osama bin Laden is?"
"I don't think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the '80s. That military dictatorship formed the Iran Mujahideen. The Mujahideen subsequently became Al Qaeda and Taliban. So I believe that break has not been made between the supporters and sympathizers of the Mujahideen and thereby, of the Taliban and Al Qaeda that is necessary. We need an administration and a security apparatus that does not have people with links to the Iran Jihad of the '80s."
Nothing in there about bin Laden being murdered by some dude that's been locked up since February of 2002.
Sorry for jumping on you for "spreading disinformation".
You are correct that the BBC censored Bhutto's statement about bin laden being "murdered". Why they chose to do that is anyone's guess. However, it still doesn't change the fact that Bhutto misspoke.
When I originally saw the Frost interview with Bhutto, I thought is was strange that she would say bin Laden had been murdered - like many others, but I decided to research it a bit and found that the day after her interview with Frost, she acknowleged that bin Laden was alive. I'm not personally saying he's alive. I personally think he's long bin dead. And I believe the official version of 9/11 is complete BS and all that. But this Bhutto thing... it's an innocent mistake on Bhutto's part and is being blown WAY out of proportion on blogs like 911Blogger and other message forums and websites like Prison Planet.
The BBC thing has some potential of being 'News Worthy', but in the end they'll just say something like "We made a decision to edit out Mrs. Bhutto's statement that bin Laden was murdered by Omar Sheikh , because it was discovered after the interview that Mrs. Bhutto simply misspoke. Following the interview Mrs. Bhutto explained to us that she meant to say the name 'Daniel Pearl', since Omar Sheikh was the person blamed for murdering Pearl in 2002. In fact, Mrs. Bhutto appeared on CNN a day after BBC's interview and acknowledged that bin Laden was alive."
If this issue is pursued to a level where the BBC cannot just ignore it any longer, maybe they'll also issue an apology for the confusion and for not explaining why they chose to edit out Bhutto's bin Laden statement on their website.
IF you or anyone else thinks an apology is worth pursuing, more power to you.
But it's not going to change the fact that Bhutto misspoke and really meant to say Daniel Pearl. It's not going to change the fact that she went on teevee the very next day to promote the idea that bin Laden was still alive and a threat.
This can all be pointed out by the BBC and they'll probably provide plenty of evidence that Bhutto made it crystal clear before she was killed that she believed OBL was alive and well. And this will only reinforce the OBL fairytale that he's still a threat.
Sorry for the copy and paste, but I'm really short on time right now. _________________ "Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Not exactly sure how many hours between the time this video was shot and Bhutto's assassination, but my rough guestimate is less than 8.
I first saw this posted on Youtube at approximately 9-10AM US EST on December 27, 2007. Anyone know how many hours that would have been after Bhutto's murder? _________________ "Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Needless to say, my Bhutto post on DU was quickly moved by moderators,
who quickly shifted it from the busy 'Political Discussion' forum to the
quiet backwaters of the '9/11 Attacks' forum.
(Gotta protect those DU proles from dangerous thoughtcrime, eh!)
Great photos Hocus! You said:
In the unusual pre-announcement of this venue as opposed to past ones
also noted by this correspondent... a shade of willful complicity among its
Absolutely! There are a lot of questions to be answered by those looking
after the personal security of Benazir Bhutto. Especially in the light of the
previous assassination attempt.
As you say this was a pre-announced rally, and so security should have
been at a high level because this allowed planning of an assassination.
There are very basic rules of VIP security which somehow were not
covered by her security team. At such a venue, the time of maximum
danger of an attack is after the event, when there are large movements
of people and a sense that the event is over --leading to a possible lowering
of their guard by security personnel. By comparison, at the start of the
event everyone is on high alert.
And furthermore, as the venue map below shows, the highest danger
point for such an after-event attack would be when Bhutto atempts to
exit the venue through the crowd at the back gate.
Finally, because the crowd in front and beside her vehicle would be
packed tight, thus restricting the movement of either a suicide-bomber
or a shooter, the place of vulnerability is towards the rear of the vehicle.
The failure to provide any meaningful protection on any of the above
points does indicate either massive security incompetence or collusion.
And how hard is it to fit four small bulletproof glass panels around the
sunroof of the vehicle? Clearly, Bhutto did not have an effective security
supervisor charged with protecting her life and doing that job well.
Such a person was vital, because as Gary points out in his excellent post,
the official government protection for Bhutto was headed by Musharraf's
"close personal friend Brig Eliz Shah, formerly ISI now tangential
Intelligence team, who himself was/is OBL's handler, as well as close
personal friend of Mullah Omar of the Taliban....
Yeah, a fox officially in charge of henhouse security. What a joke!
And everybody is on-cue to provide the media with safe comment. Gary
you also refer to General Gul, who is wheeled out as the questioning
voice - but always accepting the thrust of the official line. They got all
shades of Al-Qaeda lined up. All safe hands.
Bri says: "Conspiracy within conspiracy made to look like a conspiracy."
Lol. Yeah, pity people never get to that last onion layer of conspiracy.
But the planners make sure they never do. It was cute how they used
laughable claims by the Interior Ministry spokesperson to deliberately
highlight the role of the government/ISI and make them the focus.
Thus satisfying the need for a conspiracy explanation, but grounding that
conspiracy in Pakistan rather that with the ISI's CIA bosses in the U.S.
Their purpose served, those ridiculous claims have been withdrawn today:
Pakistan retracts 'lever killed Bhutto' theory
Tuesday, 01 January , 2008, 14:00
Islamabad: The Pakistan government has retracted its contention that former prime minister Benazir Bhutto died after striking her head against the sunroof lever of her SUV and has "apologised" for floating the theory.
"The caretaker government of Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro on Monday apologised for the highly provocative comment made by the Interior Ministry spokesman that Bhutto died because she hit the lever of her bullet-proof Land Cruiser on the fateful (Dec 27) evening," The News reported on Tuesday.
At a briefing for newspaper editors from all over the country, Interior Minister Lt Gen. (retd) Hamid Nawaz asked the media and the people to "forgive and ignore" the comment by Ministry spokesman Brig (retd) Javed Cheema.
I felt that one of the most important aspects of the killing is that it shows
the establishment again using the I.S.I. as a scapegoat, in the same way
as they did with the alleged $100,000 wire to Mohammed Atta from ISI,
which was such an obvious red herring and is directly analogous to the
'sunroof lever' red herring in Bhutto's case.
This has implications for the believability of the official 9/11 script.
Because, even though not everyone is ready to face the complicity of
the Western security establishment in 9/11, many can see that it is
quite possible that the same players sacrificed Bhutto. Expedient murder
of one person is easier to accept than politically-expedient murder
of thousands of U.S citizens.....
But once you buy that Bhutto was taken out by the CIA/ISI,
then you have to wonder about the CIA/ISI in relation to 9/11.....
Don't you just. _________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Last edited by Fintan on Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
PERMANENT WAR: THE STAKES FOR WORKING PEOPLE
by Ralph Schoenman
October 19, 2002
Arnaud de Borchegrave, editor at large of United Press International, published an extended report by General Gul Hamid, the head of the International Inter-Services (ISI) in Pakistan, Pakistan’s de facto behind-the-scenes government since 1948. (Hmm, that just caught my eye ...)
It was, in part, through the good offices of General Gul Hamid that the "terror" apparatus of Osama bin Laden and of Gulbedin Hekmetyar was created by the CIA for deployment in Afghanistan and in the Central Asian Republics of the Soviet Union, and funded with $6 billion by the CIA.
It was via the ISI and General Gul Hamid that the Taliban were organized, funded and placed in power in Afghanistan.
Those so demonized as terrorists were long under the direction of U.S. intelligence. Their units were and remain penetrated by U.S. operatives, such as Emad Ali Salem. (Egyptian operative who ran the 1993 WTC attack while on FBI payroll.)
In his interview with Arnaud de Borchegrave of UPI, General Gul Hamid stated,
"It is clear. There was a plot by United States Air Force officers. The twin towers were first attacked at 8:45 a.m. and four flights were diverted from their assigned airspace; yet Air Force jets did not scramble - standard procedure - until 10:00 a.m.
"I know these operations. This was the Mossad with its U.S. accomplices. The United States spends $40 billion on intelligence control and monitoring. I know this well. $400 billion in ten years. Little escapes them. Yet this administration claims it was taken by surprise.
"Don’t believe it. Within ten minutes of the second twin tower being hit, CNN announced that Osama bin Laden had done it. I am in intelligence. This was a typical piece of planned disinformation by the real perpetrators. It creates an instant mind-set. It puts public opinion in a trance that prevents even intelligent people from thinking for themselves."
"What about Bin Laden?" insists de Borchegrave.
"From a cave inside a mountain, from a peasant’s hovel?" replies Gul Hamid. "Be serious. He does not have the capacity for so sophisticated an operation. … Four flights are diverted from their assigned airspace, but there was not one air controller sounding the instant alarm. In Pakistan, if there is no response to I.F.F. (Friend or Foe Identification) jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further questions asked.
"We’re talking about the Pentagon – interdicted space. We’re talking about the White House. This is an inside job."
Gul Hamid then elaborates on how the Pentagon quest for massive funds and U.S. conquest of Central Asian oil without opposition was unthinkable before September 11. (just as stated by both Brzezinski and the PNAC guys, a year earlier)
Gul Hamid's successor as director of Pakistan’s ISI was General Mahmoud Ahmad. General Ahmad was in Washington in the week preceding September 11, where he met over several days with the National Security Council, the CIA and the Pentagon. (as well as House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Goss and Graham, I believe)
While there, General Mahmoud directed $100,000 into the account of Mohammad Atta. The disclosure of this by the BBC and the Hindustani Times in New Delhi, led to his resignation.
I think that Ralph Schoenman's own words blamed the CIA and Mossad, in that order. Hamid blames Mossad and the CIA. Is there a difference? I don't think this is an issue, except to those who think that Mossad tricked the holy US Government.
using the I.S.I. as a scapegoat, in the same way
as they did with the alleged $100,000 wire to Mohammed Atta from ISI,
I don't take this story as "red herring" talk. I considered that. If so, they are certainly "web-only" red herrings, i.e. designed for a small subset of the Truther cult.
That isn't what I got out of the ISI Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad story, for several reasons.
1) India reported it, but not the US media, or very very sparsely.
2) When an Indian reporter asked Condi Rice about it -- after the FBI had confirmed it -- she blew it off in 1.2 seconds, and no discussion ever ensued about Ahmad's flight to Washington and presence at the White House (?) on Sept 11, breakfast with Mr. Porter Goss (who had since come out patriotically taking a stand against "finger-pointing"). By the way, if you watch Evidence of Revision, I believe it is the Mayor of Dallas (General Cabell's brother) who tells everyone on TV that "this is not a time for fingerpointing, but for reflection on who we are" yada yada.
3) Since this explosive info didn't hit MSM at all, probably 99% of Americans don't know a thing about it --- even obsessed "Truthers" who prefer to focus on Loose Change or other dubious arguments and half-arguments. If a tree falls in a forest, ...
4) Those of us who ARE AWARE of the Pakistan--I.S.I.--Venice, FL--wire transfer story are probably all fully aware that ISI = CIA (as Chossudovsky pointed out for me) and that this ISI guy was sitting in conference with all our highest level Intelligence leaders "discussing terrorism", according to reports released congruent with his arrival on Sept 8 or so.
5) Those of us who ARE AWARE of this, are also aware that even if someone could conjure up a believable, reasonable explanation for this confluence of events and people, what the govt and MSM have chosen to do is suppress the entire story from public awareness. That in itself points at guilt. The innocent don't conceal. This is also an indicator of anti red herringism. Red herrings don't produce results unless people are aware of them.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum