Wednesday, September 11, 2019

The Core: Part 2. State Sponsored Terrorism

 Scott Creighton (archived from March 2008)

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."

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."

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