The Core
Scott Creighton
Part 2. State Sponsored
Terrorism
Understanding the role that “state sponsored terrorism” has played in the development of recent events is critical to determining the course that has been plotted for the future of our society.
If we are to accept the definition of
“terrorism” (and there is no reason why we shouldn’t) as “…
violence
or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for
political or other ideological goals.”
then we must recognize that acts such as these do happen and that
they are often committed by “states”, or nations, with the intent
to illicit some change in the affected population or nation that will
somehow benefit those that planned the terrorist acts.
The current administration
has justified two invasions of other nations based on the attacks of
9/11. These invasions were largely based on intelligence that is
currently coming under scrutiny from many sources as being curious at
best and fraudulent at worse. But, of course, the same thing was
eventually discovered about the intelligence that lead us to war with
Iraq.
This chapter will deal with
the idea of state sponsored terrorism. What it means and how it has
been used in the past by small factions, within our own
government, who had a defined agenda all their own.
The first part of this
chapter is called “In Their Own Words” and it uses quotes from
multiple sources to show that the official story of 9/11 has been
falling apart for some time, and that there are those within the
administration that are working diligently to continue to prop it up.
The last part of this chapter
will deal with the history of “state sponsored terrorism” as it
has been conducted by a small group of highly placed officials within
our own government for several decades. Why they have been doing it,
and who the key players have been, is very important to know.
We will that this small group of officials are still
working within this administration and that they are quite probably
the real terrorists we have been looking for all along.
2.1 : In Their Own Words
A. 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 5.4
A Money Trail: “… we have seen no
evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government
official-supplied any funding.”
Times of India report; “A
top FBI counter-terrorism official told the US Senate governmental
affairs committee on Thursday that investigators have “traced the
origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in
Pakistan.’’ John S Pistole, deputy assistant director of the
FBI’s counter-terrorism division
Times of India report; “The
Times of India first reported on October 10, 2001 that India
told the US that some $100,000 had been wired to the leader of the
hijackers, Mahmud Atta, by British-born terrorist Ahmad Saeed Umar
Sheikh.”
Times of India report;
“Indian authorities also told the US that the trail led back
from Sheikh to the then chief of ISI, Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmad who was
subsequently forced to retire by Pakistan president Pervez
Musharraf.”
Times of India report; “US
authorities are silent about the role some Pakistanis may have played
in the conspiracy. The role of Sheikh and Lt Gen Ahmad has yet to see
the light of the day.”
B. 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 5.4
A Money Trail: “To date, the U.S. government has not been able
to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.
Ultimately the question is of little practical
significance.”
G.W. Bush ; “Any government
that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the
murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.”
G. W. Bush; “The regime has
longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are
Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.” 09/28/2002
G. W. Bush; “Evidence from
intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.” 01/28/03
C. 9/11 Commission Report, 5.1
Terrorist Entrepreneurs:
“Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on
information obtained from captured al Qaeda members.”
“Assessing the truth of statements
by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging.
Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence
reports…”
“We submitted questions for use in
the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how
questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed
to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the
credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the
reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive
interrogation process.”
New York Times article from Dec.
6th 2007 ; “The Central
Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least
two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al
Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody,”
New York Times article from Dec.
6th 2007; “The videotapes showed agency operatives in
2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu
Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody
— to severe interrogation techniques.”
New York Times article from Dec.
6th 2007; “The recordings were not provided to a
federal court hearing the case of the terror suspect Zacarias
Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission,”
Gerald Posner from Huffington Post
article; “Several hours after he ( Zubaydah)
first fingered Prince Ahmed, his captors
challenged the information, and said that since he had disparaged the
Saudi royal family, he would be executed. It was at that point that
some of the secrets of 9/11 came pouring out. In a short monologue,
that one investigator told me was the "Rosetta Stone" of
9/11, Zubaydah laid out details of how he and the al Qaeda hierarchy
had been supported at high levels inside the Saudi and Pakistan
governments.”
D. 9/11 Commissioners
Statements since release of the report:
Lee Hamilton Vice Chairman of the
9/11 Commission Report: “I don’t believe for a minute
that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. ...
We had a lot of people strongly opposed to
what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and
to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were
set up to fail.”
Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11
Commissioner; "We were extremely frustrated with the false
statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not
sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or
merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy." http://www.cnn.com
John F. Lehman, Jr., PhD – 9/11
Commissioner; "Some staff members and commissioners of the
Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it
reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a
deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather
than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to
sources involved in the debate. ..”
Daniel Marcus – General
Counsel of the 9-11 Commission; “If tapes were destroyed, he
said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it
could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being
sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06
John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior
Counsel, 9/11 Commission; “"I was shocked at how different
the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a
former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into
events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes
told a radically different story from what had been told to us and
the public for two years. ... This is not spin. This is not true."
http://www.washingtonpost
No comments:
Post a Comment