Archive | August 6th, 2013

The United-States spent 10 million dollars for the defection of Syrian policemen


The Bureau of Conflicts and of Stabilization Operations (Department of State) has employed 10 million dollars to pay off Syrian policemen in order for them to defect from their jobs and insure security in the ’’freed-zone’’, revealed it’s president Rick Barton, during the Aspen Security Forum, on July 19th 2013.

Mr. Barton did not, however, indicated how many police officers were corrupted in this manner, but declared that each one of them receives a monthly salary of at least 150 dollars.

Since the beginning of the conflict, Congress has voted for as high as 50 million dollars of ’’aide’’ to the ’’rebels’’. Only a small part of this funding has been spent.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on The United-States spent 10 million dollars for the defection of Syrian policemen

Cultural Penetration in Pakistan


By Sajjad Shaukat

Socialists agree that historical background and national character play a key in moulding the behaviour pattern of a country’s people, while customs and beliefs also influence the thoughts of individuals. But electronic media of the rival countries have accelerated the process in formulating the opinion of persons against each other.

In these terms, as part of psychological warfare, besides supporting subversive acts in our country, India has started cultural penetration in Pakistan through dramas and films which are making handful of loyal viewership because there is no any official resistance or prohibiting laws of in our country in this respect.

As a matter of fact, government issued licenses to different channels with a view to earning revenue, and in the process showed utter disregard to the core values of our culture.

So, the job of media invaders has been facilitated by some of us by encouraging projection of Indian films, and dramas. Shameless interest groups are promoting foreign movies and dramas just to protect their monetary benefits and welcome outer invasion with open arms.

Meanwhile, the civil society has resisted this practice through their meager voice, but those enjoying political, social and economic influence favoured storming attack of external media instruments which have power and the ability to kill without firing any bullet.

In such situation, any uncertain and cynic grain of mistrust injected through Indian media will never allow us to strengthen our real values and beliefs as Muslims. Therefore, the hostile elements, as Indian TV channels also target us with their cartoons and animated caricatures. The aim is to capture Pakistan’s loyal audience of the future and injecting them with dissenting thought to challenge the teachings and traditions of Islamic culture.

The hostile propaganda against our customs and beliefs advances at a gradual pace, starting with a positive thought and supporting a just event. But, it contains deeply entrenched acrimony to create sense of suspicion amongst our youth who are passing through a formative stage of development and are at the initial phase of understanding their religious beliefs, cultural norms and core values.

While, Indian films and dramas are now openly shown by Pakistan’s cable networks, Indian commercials are also being displayed on our channels, projecting Indian products and consumer goods. In such phenomenon, people, especially the youth and female audience are likely to prefer brand of Indian products and goods.

On the other side, New Delhi does not allow telecast of Pakistani dramas and movies in Indian soil. In this context, New Delhi has adopted very strict policy of restricting Pakistani channels, being broadcasted in India. In August 2009, Indian daily, “The Asian Age” disclosed that the Indian government banned Pakistani TV channels in its country and it was also planning to establish high-frequency transmitters and towers in the bordering areas to stop transmission of Pakistani programmes.

But Indian rulers’ decision was taken as a preventive move to keep the new generation ignorant about other side of the coin—from Pakistani media, while continuing Indian propaganda against Pakistan.

However, more shocking aspect is that there is not lack of supporters of Indian TV channels in Pakistan. These internal elements neglect the fact that the Indian media, news or entertainment tend to malign Pakistan and to dominate its culture rather than to entertain the audience. In fact, Indian film industry often makes movies against Pakistan which project our country as a villain. Pakistan-bashing, denigrating Pakistan and burning its flag are common in Hindi films. Such films are exempted from heavy taxes and win prestigious awards, even if they totally flop in the Indian cinemas.

It is noteworthy that with the rapid development of science, range of the TV channels has extended to many countries. Although Turkish dramas are also shown on our channels for revenue earning—these dramas have least cultural proximity to own culture and social values, yet, India has deliberately been sending high electronic waves so that its cultural propaganda could reach every part of Pakistan.

In this connection, particularly, Indian films, dramas and special-shows which display dances and songs including cartoons and caricatures are full of obscenity and vulgarity. These sorts of entertainment seen by our youngsters and teenagers are negatively influencing their minds, as being immature; they are becoming more prone to Indian media’s propaganda campaign.

It is regrettable that owing to the absence of a clear-cut media policy, some renowned private TV channels of Pakistan are also following suit, and present dance competition shows in imitation of Indian programmes by displaying, as if dance is a part of our culture. There is also a misconception among the supporters of Indian channels in our country that both the neighbouring countries share a common culture.

Pakistan’s viewers must know that in one of his speeches, while explaining separate culture of Muslims, Quaid-e-Azam said, “We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral code, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitudes and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life.”

There are number of countries which allow access of their citizens to the government-controlled Internet only. In order to protect the nation particularly the youth, the concerned authorities must take immediate note of Indian cultural penetration in Pakistan, against our traditions, and values. In this respect, first of all, the right option is that ban should be placed on obscene and vulgar films and dramas from across the neighbouring country. For this purpose, proper legislation or law could prohibit TV channels and cable networks which show Indian programmes.

And, there is need to promote our own culture by helping our TV channels and film industry making them lucrative so that Pakistani talent could divert their energies in serving their own audience. Once Pakistani artists and audience are satisfied with local means of entertainment, they will not depend on Indian channels.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations


Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Cultural Penetration in Pakistan

US Government “Protection” of Al-Qaeda Terrorists and the US-Saudi “Black Hole”

Global Research

For almost two centuries American government, though always imperfect, was also a model for the world of limited government, having evolved a system of restraints on executive power through its constitutional arrangement of checks and balances.

Since 9/11 however, constitutional American government has been overshadowed by a series of emergency measures to fight terrorism. The latter have mushroomed in size and budget, while traditional government has been shrunk. As a result we have today what the journalist Dana Priest has called

two governments: the one its citizens were familiar with, operated more or less in the open: the other a parallel top secret government whose parts had mushroomed in less than a decade into a gigantic, sprawling universe of its own, visible to only a carefully vetted cadre – and its entirety…visible only to God.[1]

More and more, it is becoming common to say that America, like Turkey before it, now has what Marc Ambinder and John Tirman have called a deep state behind the public one.[2]And this parallel government is guided in surveillance matters by its own Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, which according to the New York Times “has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court.”[3] Thanks largely to Edward Snowden, it is now clear that the FISA Court has permitted this deep state to expand surveillance beyond the tiny number of known and suspected Islamic terrorists, to any incipient protest movement that might challenge the policies of the American war machine.

Americans have by and large not questioned this parallel government, accepting that sacrifices of traditional rights and traditional transparency are necessary to keep us safe from al Qaeda attacks. However secret power is unchecked power, and experience of the last century has only reinforced the truth of Lord Acton’s famous dictum that unchecked power always corrupts. It is time to consider the extent to which American secret agencies have developed a symbiotic relationship with the forces they are supposed to be fighting – and have even on occasion intervened to let al-Qaeda terrorists proceed with their plots.

“Intervened to let al-Qaeda terrorists proceed with their plots”? These words as I write them make me wonder yet again, as I so often do, if I am not losing my marbles, and proving myself to be no more than a zany “conspiracy theorist.” Yet I have to remind myself that my claim is not one coming from theory, but from certain undisputed facts, about incidents that are true even though they have been systematically suppressed or under-reported in the American mainstream media.

Worse, I am describing a phenomenon that occurred not just once, but consistently, almost predictably. We shall see that, among the al-Qaeda terrorists who were first protected and then continued their activities were

1) Ali Mohamed, identified in the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 68) as the leader of the 1998 Nairobi Embassy bombing;

2) Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s close friend and financier while in the Philippines of Ramzi Yousef (principle architect of the first WTC attack) and his uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (next)

3) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, identified in the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 145) as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.”

4) Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, whose presence in the United States was concealed from the FBI by CIA officers for months before 9/11.[4]

It might sound from these three citations that the 9/11 Commission marked a new stage in the U.S. treatment of these terrorists, and that the Report now exposed those terrorists who in the past had been protected. On the contrary, a principal purpose of my essay is to show that

1) one purpose of protecting these individuals had been to protect a valued intelligence connection (the “Al-Qaeda connection” if you will);

2) one major intention in the 9/11 Commission Report was to continue protecting this connection;

3) those on the 9/11 Commission staff who were charged with this protection included at least one commission member (Jamie Gorelick), one staff member (Dietrich Snell) and one important witness (Patrick Fitzgerald) who earlier had figured among the terrorists’ protectors.

In the course of writing this essay, I came to another disturbing conclusion I had not anticipated. This is that a central feature of the protection has been to defend the 9/11 Commission’s false picture of al-Qaeda as an example of non-state terrorism, at odds with not just the CIA but also the royal families of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In reality, as I shall show, royal family protection from Qatar and Saudi Arabia (concealed by the 9/11 Commission) was repeatedly given to key figures like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged “principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.”

This finding totally undermines the claim that the wars fought by America in Asia since 9/11 have been part of a global “war on terror.” On the contrary, the result of the wars has been to establish a permanent U.S. military presence in the oil- and gas-rich regions of Central Asia, in alliance with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan – the principal backers of the jihadi terrorist networks the U.S. been supposedly fighting. Meanwhile the most authentic opponents in the region of these Sunni jihadi terrorists – the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran – have found themselves overthrown (in the case of Iraq and Libya) subverted with U.S. support (in the case of Syria), or sanctioned and threatened as part of an “axis of evil” (in the case of Iran). We should not forget that, just one day after 9/11, “Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and ‘getting Iraq.’”[5]

The protection to terrorists described in this essay, in other words, has been sustained partly in order to support the false ideology that has underlain U.S. Asian wars for more than a decade. And the blame cannot be assigned all to the Saudis. Two months before 9/11, FBI counter-terrorism expert John O’Neill described to the French journalist Jean-Charles Brisard America’s “impotence” in getting help from Saudi Arabia concerning terrorist networks. The reason? In Brisard’s paraphrase, “Just one: the petroleum interests.”[6] Former CIA officer Robert Baer voiced a similar complaint in complained about the lobbying influence of “the Foreign Oil Companies Group, a cover for a cartel of major petroleum companies doing business in the Caspian. . . . The deeper I got, the more Caspian oil money I found sloshing around Washington.”[7]

The decade of protection for terrorists demonstrates the power of this extra dimension to the American deep state: the dark forces in our society responsible for protecting terrorists, over and above the parallel government institutionalized on and after 9/11.[8]Although I cannot securely define these dark forces, I hope to demonstrate that they are related to the black hole at the heart of the complex U.S-Saudi connection, a complex that involves the oil majors like Exxon, the military domination of oil and gas movements from the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, offsetting arms sales, Saudi investments in major U.S. corporations like Citibank and the Carlyle Group, and above all the ultimate United States dependency on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and OPEC, for the defense of the petrodollar.[9]

This deeper dimension of the deep state, behind its institutional manifestation in our parallel government, is a far greater threat than foreign terrorism to the preservation of U.S. democracy.

The FBI’s Intervention with the RCMP to Release Ali Mohamed, 1993

Let me begin this essay with the FBI’s instruction in 1993 to the Canadian RCMP to release the al-Qaeda organizer Mohamed Ali, who then proceeded to Nairobi in the same year to begin planning the U.S. Embassy bombing of 1998.

In early 1993 a wanted Egyptian terrorist named Essam Hafez Marzouk, a close ally of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, arrived at Canada’s Vancouver Airport and was promptly detained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). A second terrorist named Mohamed Ali, “the primary U.S. intelligence agent for Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden,” came from California to the airport to meet him; and, not finding him, made the mistake of asking about his friend at the Vancouver airport customs office. As a result the RCMP interrogated Mohamed Ali for two days, but finally released him, even though Ali had clearly come in order to smugle a wanted terrorist into the United States.[10]

If the RCMP had detained Mohamed Ali, who was much bigger game than the first terrorist, hundreds of lives might have been saved. After being released, Ali went on to Nairobi, Kenya. There in December 1993 he and his team photographed the U.S. Embassy, and then delivered the photos to Osama bin Laden in Khartoum, leading to the Embassy bombing of 1998.[11] Ali later told an FBI agent that at some point he also trained al Qaeda terrorists in how to hijack airplanes using box cutters.[12]

The RCMP release of Ali Mohamed was unjustified, clearly had historic consequences, and may have contributed to 9/11. Yet the release was done for a bureaucratic reason: Ali Mohamed gave the RCMP the phone number of an FBI agent, John Zent, in the San Francisco FBI office, and told them, “If they called that number, the agent on the other end of the line would vouch for him.” As Ali had predicted, Zent ordered his release.[13]/sup>

Ali Mohamed was an important double agent, of major interest to more important U.S. authorities than Zent. Although Mohamed was at last arrested in September 1998 for his role in the Nairobi Embassy bombing, the USG still had not sentenced him in 2006; and he may still not have gone to jail.[14]

The story of his release in Vancouver and its consequences is another example of the dangers of working with double agents. One can never be sure if the agent is working for his movement, for his agency, or – perhaps most likely – for increasing his own power along with that of both his movement and his agency, by increasing violence in the world.[15]

Ali Mohamed’s Release as a Deep Event Ignored by the U.S. Media

Mohamed’s release in Vancouver was a deep event, by which I mean an event predictably suppressed in the media and still not fully understandable. A whole chapter in my book The Road to 9/11 was not enough to describe Mohamed’s intricate relationships at various times with the CIA, U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, the murder of Jewish extremist Meir Kahane, and finally the cover-up of 9/11 perpetrated by the 9/11 Commission and their witness, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (Mohamed’s former prosecutor).[16]

The deep event is also an example of deep politics, a mixture of intrigue and suppression involving not just a part of the U.S. Government, but also the governing media. To this day (according to a 2013 search of Lexis Nexis) the Vancouver release incident, well covered in Canada’s leading newspaper The Toronto Globe and Mail (December 22, 2001), has never been mentioned in any major American newspaper.

More disturbingly, it is not hinted at the otherwise well-informed books and articles about Ali Mohamed by Steven Emerson, Peter Bergen, and Lawrence Wright.[17] Nor is there any surviving mention of it in the best insider’s book about the FBI and Ali Mohamed, The Black Banners, by former FBI agent Ali Soufan (a book that was itself heavily and inexcusably censored by the CIA, after being cleared for publication by the FBI).[18] Since first publishing this paragraph, I have noticed that former CIA office Michael Scheuer also faults both Steve Coll and Lawrence Wright for their “whole-hog acceptance of the Saudi narrative” that minimizes U.S.-Saudi differences.[19]

There is no doubt of the FBI’s responsibility for Mohamed’s release, It (along with other FBI anomalies in handling Mohamed) is frankly acknowledged in a Pentagon Internet article on Mohamed:

In early 1993, Mohamed was detained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) at the Vancouver, Canada, airport. He had come to the airport to meet an Egyptian who had arrived from Damascus but was found to be carrying two forged Saudi passports. When Mohamed was about to be arrested as well, he told the RCMP he was collaborating with the FBI and gave them a name and phone number to call to confirm this. The RCMP made the call and Mohamed was released immediately at the request of the FBI. When the FBI subsequently questioned Mohamed about this incident, he offered information about a ring in California that was selling counterfeit documents to smugglers of illegal aliens. This is the earliest hard evidence that is publicly available of Mohamed being an FBI informant.[20]

Contrast this official candor about the FBI responsibility for Mohamed’s release with the suppression of it in a much longer account of Mohamed (3200 words) by Benjamin Weiner and James Risen in the New York Times:

[In 1993] he was stopped by the border authorities in Canada, while traveling in the company of a suspected associate of Mr. bin Laden’s who was trying to enter the United States using false documents.

Soon after, Mr. Mohamed was questioned by the F.B.I., which had learned of his ties to Mr. bin Laden. Apparently in an attempt to fend off the investigators, Mr. Mohamed offered information about a ring in California that was selling counterfeit documents to smugglers of illegal aliens.[21]

A long Wall Street Journal account massages the facts even more evasively:

At about the same time [1993], the elusive Mr. Mohamed popped up again on the FBI radar screen with information that underscored the emerging bin Laden threat. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police questioned Mr. Mohamed in the spring of 1993 after his identification was discovered on another Arab man trying to enter the U.S. from Vancouver — a man Mr. Mohamed identified as someone who had helped him move Mr. bin Laden to Sudan. The FBI located Mr. Mohamed near San Francisco in 1993, where he volunteered the earliest insider description of al Qaeda that is publicly known.[22]

In 1998, after the Embassy bombings, Mohamed was finally arrested. In the ensuing trial an FBI Agent, Daniel Coleman, entered a court affidavit (approved by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald) which summarized the Vancouver incident as follows:

In 1993, MOHAMED advised the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) that he had provided intelligence and counter-intelligence training in Afghanistan to a particular individual…. MOHAMED admitted that he had travelled to Vancouver, Canada, in the spring of 1993 to facilitate the entry of that individual into the United States…. MOHAMED further admitted that he and the individual had transported Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan to the Sudan in 1991…. MOHAMED told the RCMP that he was in the process of applying for a job as an FBI interpreter and did not want this incident to jeopardize the application. (In fact, MOHAMED then had such an application pending though he was never hired as a translator.)[23]

Like the American media, this FBI affidavit suppressed the fact that Mohamed, an admitted ally of Osama bin Laden caught red-handed with another known terrorist, was released on orders from the FBI.

The Two Levels of American History: Official History and Deep History

The whole episode illustrates what has become all too common in recent American history, the way in which secret bureaucratic policies can take priority over the public interest, even to the point of leading to mass murder (since it contributed at a minimum to the 1998 Embassy bombings, if not also 9/11). It is also an example of what I mean by the two levels of history in America, We can refer to them as those historical facts officially acknowledged, and those facts officially suppressed; or alternatively as those facts fit to be mentioned in the governing media, and those suppressed by the same media. This leads in turn to two levels of historical narrative: official or archival history, which ignores or marginalizes deep events, and a second level – called deep history by its practitioners or “conspiracy theory” by its critics – which incorporates them. The method of deep political research is to recover deep events from this second level.

This activity sets deep political research at odds with the governing media, but not, I believe with the national interest. Speaking personally as an ex-diplomat, I should state clearly that the national interest does occasionally require secrets, at least for a time. Kissinger’s trip to China, for example, which led to a normalization of U.S.-Chinese relations, probably required secrecy (at least at the time) in order to succeed.

When insiders and the governing media collaborate in the keeping of a secret, as in the case of the FBI-ordered release of Mohamed, they probably persuade themselves that they are protecting, not just the FBI, but national security. However national security in this case was conspicuously not served by the subsequent embassy bombings, let alone by 9/11.

In the glaring gap between these two levels of history is a third level — that of the privileged books about Mohamed – privileged in the sense that they have access to sources denied to others — that give important but selective parts of the truth. This selectivity is not necessarily culpable; it may for example be due to pressure from lawyers representing Saudi millionaires (a pressure I have yielded to myself).[24] But cumulatively it is misleading.

I owe a considerable debt in particular to Lawrence Wright’s book, The Looming Tower, which helped expose many problems and limitations in the official account of 9/11. But I see now in retrospect that I, like many others, have been delayed by its selectivity on many matters (including for example Mohamed’s RCMP release) from developing a less warped understanding of the truth.

The Longer History of FBI and USG Protection for Ali Mohamed

Why did John Zent vouchsafe for Mohamed in 1993, so that the RCMP released him. The explanation of Peter Lance, the best chronicler of the FBI’s culpability in both the first and second WTC attacks, is that Zent did so because Mohamed was already working as his personal informant, “feeding Zent ‘intelligence’ on Mexican smugglers who were moving illegal immigrants into the United States from the South.”[25] (FBI agent Cloonan confirms that Mohamed had been working as a local FBI informant since 1992.[26]) Elsewhere Lance describes Zent as “trusting and distracted,” so that he failed to realize Mohamed’s importance.[27]

But the FBI’s protection of Ali Mohamed did not begin with Zent. It dated back at least to 1989, when (according to the Pentagon Security bio)

While serving in the Army at Fort Bragg, he traveled on weekends to Jersey City, NJ, and to Connecticut to train other Islamic fundamentalists in surveillance, weapons and explosives. … Telephone records show that while at Fort Bragg and later, Mohamed maintained a very close and active relationship with the Office of Services [Makhtab-al-Khidimat] of the Mujihadeen, in Brooklyn, which at that time was recruiting volunteers and soliciting funds for the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. This was the main recruitment center for the network that, after the Soviets left Afghanistan, became known as al-Qaida….

The FBI observed and photographed Mohamed giving weapons training to a group of New York area residents during four successive weekends in July 1989. They drove from the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn to a shooting range in Calverton, Long Island, and they fired AK-47 assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns and revolvers during what appeared to be training sessions. For reasons that are unknown, the FBI then ceased its surveillance of the group.[28]

(Similarly in 1993 an FBI supervisor would again abruptly close down surveillance of another group from the al-Kifah Center at a militant training camp in Pennsylvania.)[29]

In the subsequent trial of Mohamed’s trainees and others for bombing the World Trade Center, the defense attorney, Roger Stavis, established that Mohamed was giving the al-Kifah trainees “courses on how to make bombs, how to use guns, how to make Molotov cocktails.” He showed the court that a training manual seized in Nosair’s apartment “showed how to make explosives and some kind of improvised weapons and explosives.”[30]

So why would the FBI, having discovered terrorist training, then cease its surveillance? Here the Wall Street Journal has what I am sure is the right answer: the FBI ceased surveillance because they somehow determined that the men were training “to help the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet puppet government in Afghanistan.”[31] (Note that the mujahedeen were no longer fighting the Soviet army itself, which had been withdrawn from Afghanistan as of March 1989.)

Al-Kifah, Ali Mohamed, the Flow of Arabs to Afghanistan

Afghanistan is indeed the obvious explanation for the FBI’s terminating its videotaping of jihadists from the Brooklyn Al-Kifah Refugee Center. Incorporated officially in 1987 as “Afghan Refugee Services, Inc.,” the Al-Kifah Center “was the recruitment hub for U.S.-based Muslims seeking to fight the Soviets. As many as two hundred fighters were funneled through the center to Afghanistan.”[32] More importantly, it was

a branch of the Office of Services [Makhtab-al-Khidimat]. the Pakistan-based organization that Osama bin Laden helped finance and lead and would later become al Qaeda. In fact, it was Mustafa Shalabi, an Egyptian who founded and ran the center, whom bin Laden called in 1991 when he needed help moving to Sudan.[33]

As we shall see, the Makhtab, created in 1984 to organize Saudi financial support to the foreign “Arab Afghans” in the jihad, was part of a project that had the fullest support of the Saudi, Egyptian, and U.S. Governments. And Ali Mohamed, although he remained in the US Army Reserves until August 1994, was clearly an important trainer in that project, both in Afghanistan and in America.

A privileged account of Mohamed’s career by Peter Bergen, in Holy Wars, Inc., claims that

Ali Mohamed…was an indispensable player in al-Qaeda…. At some point in the early eighties he proffered his services as an informant to the CIA, the first of his several attempts to work for the U.S. government. The Agency was in contact with him for a few weeks but broke off relations after determining he was “unreliable.” That would turn out to be a masterful understatement, as Mohamed was already a member of Egypt’s terrorist Jihad group. After being discharged from the Egyptian Army in 1984, Mohamed [took] a job in the counterterrorism department of Egyptair. The following year he moved to the United States,[34]

Bergen’s most serious omission here is that Mohamed, though he was on the State Department’s visa watch list, had been admitted to the U.S. in 1984 “on a visa-waiver program that was sponsored by the agency [i.e. CIA] itself, one designed to shield valuable assets or those who have performed valuable services for the country.”[35] This should be enough to question the CIA’s account that it found Mohamed “unreliable.” (Later, one of Mohamed’s officers at Fort Bragg was also convinced that Mohamed was “sponsored” by a U.S. intelligence service, “I assumed the CIA.”)[36] In addition Bergen omits that, before Mohamed’s brief stint as a formal CIA agent, he had been selected out of the Egyptian army in 1981 for a leadership training at Fort Bragg – an important point to which we shall return.[37]

The FBI’s Cover-Up of Ali Mohamed in the Kahane Murder

The CIA may have wanted to think that the Al-Kifah training was only for Afghanistan. But the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the mentor of the Center whom the CIA brought to America in 1990, was preaching for the killing of Jews and also for the destruction of the West.[38] His preachings guided Mohamed’s Makhtab trainees: as a first step, in November 1990, three of them conspired to kill Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense League.

Kahane’s actual killer, El Sayyid Nosair, was detained by accident almost immediately, and by luck the police soon found his two coconspirators, Mahmoud Abouhalima and Mohammed Salameh, waiting at Nosair’s house. Also at the house, according to John Miller,

were training manuals from the Army Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg [where Ali Mohamed at the time was a training officer]. There were copies of teletypes that had been routed to the Secretary of the Army and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[39]

And the Pentagon bio, with yet another gentle dig at the FBI, identifies the documents as Mohamed’s:

In a search of Nosair’s home, the police found U.S. Army training manuals, videotaped talks that Mohamed delivered at the JFK Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, operational plans for joint coalition exercises conducted in Egypt, and other materials marked Classified or Top Secret. These documents belonged to Mohamed, who often stayed in New Jersey with Nosair. The documents did not surface during Nosair’s 1991 trial for the Kahane murder. It is not known if the FBI investigated Mohamed in connection with these documents.

Yet only hours after the killing, Joseph Borelli, the chief of NYPD detectives, pronounced Nosair a “lone deranged gunman.”[40]A more extended account of his remarks in the New York Times actually alluded to Mohamed, though not by name, and minimized the significance of the links to terrorism in a detailed account of the Nosair home cache:

The files contained articles about firearms and explosives apparently culled from magazines, like Soldier of Fortune, appealing to would-be mercenaries. But the police said the handwritten papers, translated by an Arabic-speaking officer, appeared to be minor correspondence and did not mention terrorism or outline any plan to kill the militant Jewish leader who had called for the removal of all Arabs from Israel.

“There was nothing [at Nosair’s house] that would stir your imagination,” Chief Borelli said… A joint anti-terrorist task force of New York City police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been set up to look into any possible international links to the slaying, the official said, but so far has not turned up anything.

“Nothing has transpired that changes our opinion that he acted alone,” Chief Borrelli told a news conference yesterday afternoon.[41]

Later an FBI spokesman said the FBI also believed “that Mr. Nosair had acted alone in shooting Rabbi Kahane.” “The bottom line is that we can’t connect anyone else to the Kahane shooting,” an FBI agent said.[42]

Blaming the New York County District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau, the FBI later claimed that the evidence retrieved from Nosair’s home was not processed for two or three years.[43] But Robert Friedman suggests that the FBI were not just lying to the public, but also to Morgenthau (who had just helped expose and bring down the CIA-favored Muslim bank BCCI).

According to other sources familiar with the case, the FBI told District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau that Nosair was a lone gunman, not part of a broader conspiracy; the prosecution took this position at trial and lost, only convicting Nosair of gun charges. Morgenthau speculated the CIA may have encouraged the FBI not to pursue any other leads, these sources say. ‘The FBI lied to me,’ Morgenthau has told colleagues. ‘They’re supposed to untangle terrorist connections, but they can’t be trusted to do the job.’[44]

Using evidence from the Nosair trial transcript, Peter Lance confirms the tension between Morgenthau’s office, which wanted to pursue Nosair’s international terrorist connections, and the FBI, which insisted on trying Nosair alone.[45]

The FBI’s Protection of Ali Mohamed in the 1993 WTC Bombing

In thus limiting the case, the police and the FBI were in effect protecting, not just Ali Mohamed, but also Nosair’s two Arab coconspirators, Mahmoud Abouhalima and Mohammed Salameh, in the murder of a U.S. citizen. The two were thus left free to kill again on February 26, 1993, one month after the FBI secured Mohamed’s release in Vancouver. Both Abouhalima and Salameh were ultimately convicted in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, along with another Mohamed trainee, Nidal Ayyad.

To quote the Pentagon bio yet again,

In February 1993, the terrorist cell that Mohamed had trained exploded a truck bomb under the World Trade Center that killed six and injured about 1,000 persons. The perpetrators of this bombing included people Mohamed had trained, and Mohamed had been in close contact with the cell during the period leading up to the bombing [i.e. including January 1993, the month of Mohamed’s detention and release in Vancouver]. Mohamed’s name appeared on a list of 118 potential un-indicted co-conspirators that was prepared by federal prosecutors.

Ali Mohamed was again listed as one of 172 unindicted co-conspirators in the follow-up “Landmarks” case, which convicted Sheikh Rahman and others of plotting to blow up the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge.[46]The two cases were closely related, as much of the evidence for the Landmarks case came from an informant, Emad Salem, whom the FBI had first planted among the WTC plotters. But the prosecutors’ awareness of Ali Mohamed’s involvement must be contrasted with the intelligence failure at the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center: according to Steve Coll, the CTC “immediately established a seven-day, twenty-four hour task force to collect intelligence about the World Trade Center bombing…but nothing of substance came in.”[47]

In the WTC bombing case, the FBI moved swiftly to bring the Al-Kifah plotters to trial one month later, in March. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a DIA officer, later said that

we [i.e. DIA] were surprised how quickly they’d [i.e. FBI] made the arrests after the first World Trade Center bombing. Only later did we find out that the FBI had been watching some of these people for months prior to both incidents [i.e. both the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11].[48]

Shaffer’s claim that the FBI had been watching some of the plotters is abundantly corroborated, e.g. by Steve Coll in Ghost Wars.[49]

The U.S., Egyptian, and Saudi Backing for the Makhtab Network

What was being protected here by the FBI? One obvious answer is an extension of Lance’s explanation for Zent’s behavior: that Mohamed had already been a domestic FBI informant since 1992. However I entirely agree with New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who suspected that a much larger asset was being protected, the Saudi-sponsored network which we now know was the Makhtab-i-Khidimat, by this time already evolving into Al-Qaeda.

On the day the FBI arrested four Arabs for the World Trade Centre bombing, saying it had all of the suspects, Morgenthau’s ears pricked up. He didn’t believe the four were ‘self-starters,’ and speculated that there was probably a larger network as well as a foreign sponsor. He also had a hunch that the suspects would lead back to Sheikh Abdel Rahman. But he worried [correctly] that the dots might not be connected because the U.S. government was protecting the sheikh for his help in Afghanistan.[50]

This “larger network” of the Makhtab, although created in 1984, consolidated an assistance program that had been launched by the U.S. Government much earlier, at almost the beginning of the Afghan war itself.

In January 1980, Brzezinski visited Egypt to mobilize support for the jihad. Within weeks of his visit, Sadat authorized Egypt’s full participation, giving permission for the U.S. Air Force to use Egypt as a base…and recruiting, training, and arming Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood activists for battle…. Not only were they packaged and shipped to Afghanistan, but [by the end of 1980] they received expert training from U.S. Special Forces.[51]

U.S. military trainers had in fact already been in Egypt since at least 1978 (the year of the Israel-Egypt Camp David peace accords), training Sadat’s elite praetorian guard, of which Mohamed Ali was at the time a member. At first the training was handled by a “private” firm, J.J. Cappucci and Associates, owned by former CIA officers Ed Wilson and Theodore Shackley. But after Brzezinski’s visit in 1980, the contract was taken over by the CIA.[52]

In 1981 Ali Mohamed was selected out of the U.S.-trained praetorian guard for four months of Special Forces training at Fort Bragg: “Working alongside Green Berets, he learned unconventional warfare, counterinsurgency operations, and how to command elite soldiers on difficult missions.”[53] The leadership aspect of this training almost certainly means that Mohamed was part of the Pentagon’s Professional military education (PME) program for future leaders; and that he was being trained to transmit to Egypt the kind of Afghanistan-related skills that he later provided to Al-Kifah on Long Island in 1989.

Mohamed was thus in America when some of his fellow guard members, responding to a fatwa or religious order from Muslim Brotherhood member Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, assassinated Sadat in October 1981. The assassination only accelerated the export to Afghanistan of Muslim Brotherhood members accused of the murder. These included two of Mohamed’s eventual close associates, Sheikh Abdel Rahman and Rahman’s then friend Ayman al-Zawahiri, to whom Mohamed swore a bayat or oath of allegiance in 1984, after his return to Egypt.[54]

The Al-Kifah Target in 1993: Not Afghanistan but Bosnia

Morgenthau’s suspicions about Afghanistan in 1993 were very pertinent, but also somewhat anachronistic; by 1993, under its new director James Woolsey, the CIA had lost interest in Afghanistan. The new interim president of Afghanistan, Mojaddedi, under pressure from Washington, announced that the Arab Afghans should leave. Pakistan followed suit, closed the offices of all mujahedin in its country, and ordered the deportation of all Arab Afghans.[55]

But the Al-Kifah support network had new targets in mind elsewhere.

After 1991 the Brooklyn center was focused chiefly on training people for jihad in Bosnia, and at least two sources allege that Ali Mohamed himself visited Bosnia in 1992 (when he also returned to Afghanistan).[56]

Al-Kifah’s English-language newsletter Al-Hussam (The Sword) also began publishing regular updates on jihad action in Bosnia….Under the control of the minions of Shaykh Omar Abdel Rahman, the newsletter aggressively incited sympathetic Muslims to join the jihad in Bosnia and Afghanistan themselves….The Al-Kifah Bosnian branch office in Zagreb, Croatia, housed in a modern, two-story building, was evidently in close communication with the organizational headquarters in New York. The deputy director of the Zagreb office, Hassan Hakim, admitted to receiving all orders and funding directly from the main United States office of Al-Kifah on Atlantic Avenue controlled by Shaykh Omar Abdel Rahman.[57]

One of Ali Mohamed’s trainees at al-Kifah, Rodney Hampton-El, assisted in this support program, recruiting warriors from U.S. Army bases like Fort Belvoir, and also training them to be fighters in New Jersey.[58] In 1995 Hampton-El was tried and convicted for his role (along with al-Kifah leader Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman) in the plot to blow up New York landmarks. At the trial Hampton-El testified how he was personally given thousands of dollars for this project by Saudi Prince Faisal in the Washington Saudi Embassy.[59] (In addition, “Saudi intelligence has contributed to Sheikh Rahman’s legal-defence fund, according to Mohammed al-Khilewi, the former first secretary to the Saudi mission at the U.N.)”[60]

Al-Kifah, Al-Qaeda, Tajikistan, and Drugs

Meanwhile the ISI had not lost interest in bin Laden’s Arabs, but began to recruit them with bin Laden’s support for battle in new areas, notably Kashmir.[61] Bin Laden in the same period began to dispatch his jihadis into areas of the former Soviet Union, notably to the infant Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) in Tajikistan.

The outbreak of Islamist violence in Tajikistan…moved bin Laden to send a limited number of Al-Qaeda cadre to support Tajik Islamist forces, among them his close associate Wali Khan Amin Shah [an Uzbek later working in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousuf and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] and the soon-to-be-famous mujahid, Ibn Khattab. In addition, bin Laden, even after his 1991 move to Sudan, continued to run training camps in Afghanistan, where he welcomed the chance to train Tajiks, Uzbeks, Uighurs, and Chechens.[62]

In an al-Qaeda document captured in Iraq, bin Laden wrote

with the grace of Allah, we were successful in cooperating with our brothers in Tajikistan in various fields including training. We were able train a good number of them, arm them and deliver them to Tajikistan. Moreover, Allah facilitated to us delivering weapons and ammunition to them; we pray that Allah grants us all victory[63]

Many other accounts report that the delivery of arms and ammunition was facilitated by the involvement of the IMU and bin Laden in the massive flow of heroin from Afghanistan into the former Soviet Union. According to Ahmed Rashid,

Much of the I.M.U.’s financing came from the lucrative opium trade through Afghanistan. Ralf Mutschke, the assistant director of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence Directorate, estimated that sixty per cent of Afghan opium exports were moving through Central Asia and that the “I.M.U. may be responsible for seventy per cent of the total amount of heroin and opium transiting through the area.”[64]

Among the experts confirming the IMU-al-Qaeda-drug connection is Gretchen Peters,

The opium trade… supported the global ambitions of Osama bin Laden…. There was … evidence that bin Laden served as middleman between the Taliban and Arab drug smugglers…. With Mullah Omar’s approval, bin Laden hijacked the state-run Ariana Airlines, turning it into a narco-terror charter service… according to former U.S. and Afghan officials…. One U.S. intelligence report seen by the author described a smuggling route snaking up through Afghanistan’s northwest provinces if Baghdis, Faryab, and Jowzan into Turkmenistan. It was being used as of mid-2004 by “extremists associated with the Taliban, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and al-Qaeda,” the report said. Traffickers would move “both heroin and terrorists” along the route and “then onwards into other countries in Central Asia,” the CIA document said.[65]

It has been widely reported that in the early 1990s, as US financial support dwindled and bin Laden’s finances were being rapidly exhausted in Sudan, his new involvement with the IMU and later the Taliban involved al-Qaeda also in the growing Afghan heroin traffic. Peters saw a CIA document confirming this.[66] Yet the 9/11 Report, in contorted language, denied this, as did a Staff Report:

No persuasive evidence exists that al Qaeda relied on the drug trade as an important source of revenue, had any substantial involvement with conflict diamonds, or was financially sponsored by any foreign government.[67]

This surprising claim was at odds with the views of many U.S. intelligence operatives. It also contradicted the official position of the British government, which told its Parliament in 2001,

Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida have been based in Afghanistan since 1996, but have a network of operations throughout the world. The network includes training camps, warehouses, communication facilities and commercial operations able to raise significant sums of money to support its activity. That activity includes substantial exploitation of the illegal drugs trade from Afghanistan.[68]

And there were allegations that the Brooklyn Al-Kifah Center, as well as bin Laden, was involved in drug trafficking.Back in 1993, the New York Times reported that, according to investigators, “Some of the 11 men charged in the [Day of Terror] plot to bomb New York City targets are also suspected of trafficking in drugs.”[69] Mujahid Abdulqaadir Menepta, a Muslim suspect in both the 9/11 case and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was linked by telephone numbers on his cell phones to ongoing criminal investigations, involving “organized crime, drugs, and money laundering.”[70] And Raed Hijazi, an al Qaeda terrorist arrested in Jordan in 1999, had previously become an FBI informant in order to avoid drug charges.[71]

Was the U.S. Protection of the Al-Kifah Center Intended to Help Export Jihadis?

There is also no treatment in the 9/11 Report, and almost none elsewhere, of the allegations from Steven Emerson that by 1987, the Al-Kifah Center Al-Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn “had become a center for counterfeiting tens of thousands of dollars.”[72]Similarly there has been no government follow-up of the allegation by Yossef Bodansky, citing FBI informant Emad Salem, that one of the Al-Kifah cell leaders (Siddiq Ibrahim Siddig Ali)

had offered to sell a million dollars [of counterfeit currency] for $150,000, well below market value. … Quantities of counterfeit $100 bills were later found at the apartment of Sheikh Umar Abdel-Rahman.[73]

J.M. Berger goes further, reporting from court testimony: “In order to support Al Kifah’s operations,” Mustafa Shalabi, the head of the Al-Kifah Center until his murder in 1991, “employed a number of for-profit criminal enterprises, including gunrunning, arson for hire, and a counterfeiting ring set up in the basement of the jihad office.”[74] Yet the 9/11 Report is silent about these serious charges, which U.S. prosecutors at the time did not pursue.

Why this official reticence? The answer may lie in the fact that by 1996 bin Laden was “supporting Islamists in Lebanon, Bosnia, Kashmir, Tajikistan, and Chechnya.”[75] And in step with bin Laden, the al-Kifah Center was also supporting jihad after 1992 “in Afghanistan, Bosnia, the Philippines, Egypt, Algeria, Kashmir, Palestine, and elsewhere.”[76]

But bin Laden and Al-Kifah were not acting on their own, they were supporting projects, especially in Tajikistan (1993-95) and then Chechnya (after 1995), where their principal ally, Ibn al-Khattab (Thamir Saleh Abdullah Al-Suwailem) also enjoyed high-level support in Saudi Arabia.[77]

Khattab enjoyed a certain amount of logistical and financial support from Saudi Arabia. Saudi sheikhs declared the Chechen resistance a legitimate jihad, and private Saudi donors sent money to Khattab and his Chechen colleagues. As late as 1996, mujahidin wounded in Chechnya were sent to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment, a practice paid for by charities and tolerated by the state.[78]

Ali Soufan adds that America also supported this jihad: by 1996, “the United States had been on the side of Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.”[79]

By protecting the Al-Kifah Center and its associates (including Mohamed) and not prosecuting them for their crimes (including murder), the U.S. Government was in effect keeping open a channel whereby those in America who wished to wage jihad were helped to wage jihad in other countries, not here. (After the arrest of Sheikh Rahman in 1993 the Al Kifah closed itself down. But we shall see that an allied institution, Sphinx Trading, continued to be protected, even after the FBI knew it had helped one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers prepare for 9/11.)

Was all this protection intended to keep just such a channel open? It was certainly an intentional result of the protection and support for the Makhtab al-Khidimat in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Supportfor the Makhtab, and Later for Al Qaeda

The Saudis, like the Egyptians, had domestic reasons for wishing to export as many Muslim Brotherhood members to possible death in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or anywhere else. Until 1979 Saudi Arabia had provided a home to Brotherhood members fleeing persecution in countries like Syria and Egypt, where some of them had tried to assassinate the Saudis’ political enemy Gamel Abdel Nasser. But in 1979 radical Wahhabis, condemning the ruling Saudi family as corrupt infidels, seized the Grand Mosque at Mecca and defended it for weeks.[80] Profoundly shaken, the Saudi family used its foundations, like the World Muslim League (WML), to subsidize the emigration of political Islamists, above all to the new jihad in Afghanistan which opened one month later against the Soviet Union.[81]

In Afghanistan both Rahman and al-Zawahiri worked with the Makhtab al Khidamat that had been created in 1984 by two other members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Abdullah Azzam and the Saudi Osama bin Laden.[82] All that the 9/11 Commission Report has to say about the Makhtab’s financing is that “Bin Laden and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States” (p. 56). But the Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid makes clear the support coming from the Saudi royal family, including Prince Turki (the head of Saudi intelligence), and also royal creations like the World Muslim League:

Bin Laden, although not a royal, was close enough to the royals and certainly wealthy enough to lead the Saudi contingent. Bin Laden, Prince Turki and General [Hameed] Gul [the head of the Pakistani ISI] were to become firm friends and allies in a common cause. The center for the Arab-Afghans was the offices of the World Muslim League and the Muslim Brotherhood in Peshawar which was run by Abdullah Azam. Saudi funds flowed to Azam and the Makhtab al Khidamat or Services Center which he created in 1984 to service the new recruits and receive donations from Islamic charities. Donations from Saudi Intelligence, the Saudi Red Crescent, the World Muslim League and private donations from Saudi princes and mosques were channeled through the Makhtab. A decade later the Makhtab would emerge at the center of a web of radical organizations that helped carry out the World Trade Center bombing [in 1993] and the bombings of US Embassies in Africa in 1998.[83]

Former Ambassador Peter Tomsen has described how the evolution of the Makhtab into al-Qaeda was accomplished with support from the offices of royally ordained organizations like the World Muslim League (WML) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY):

Bin Laden’s brother-in-law, Mohammad Jamal Khalifa, headed the Muslim World League office in Peshawar during the mid-1980s. In 1988, he moved to Manila and opened a branch office of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. He made the charity a front for bin Laden’s terrorist operations in the Philippines and Asia. Al Qaeda operatives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and his nephew Ramzi Yusuf [master bomb-maker of the 1993 WTC bombing], traveled to Manila in the early 1990s to help Khalifa strengthen al-Qaeda networks in Southeast Asia and plan terrorist attacks in the region.[84]

There are many other examples of WML and WAMY connections to Al-Qaeda. For example Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil, a signatory of Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa to kill Jews and Americans, was invited in 1996 to the 34th WML Congress in Mecca and also spoke there to WAMY.[85] Yet there are only minimal references to Maulana Fazlur Rehman in the western (as opposed to the Asian) media, and none (according to a Lexis Nexis search in July 2013) linking him to the WML or WAMY.

The FBI’s hands-off attitude towards WAMY in America may help explain its protection of Ali Mohamed. According to former federal prosecutor John Loftus and others, there was a block in force in the 1980s against antiterrorism actions that might embarrass the Saudis.[86] This block explains for example the protection enjoyed by the chair of WAMY in Virginia, Osama bin Laden’s nephew Abdullah bin Laden. The FBI opened an investigation of Abdullah bin Laden in February 1996, calling WAMY “a suspected terrorist organization,” but the investigation was closed down six months later.[87]

How and Why Did a Passportless Osama Leave Saudi Arabia?

None of the official or privileged sources on Ali Mohamed has linked him to Saudi intelligence activities. But there is at least one such link, his trip, as described in the Coleman FBI affidavit, when he “travelled to Afghanistan to escort Usama bin Laden from Afghanistan to the Sudan.”[88] The FBI affidavit presents this, without explanation, as an act in furtherance of an al-Qaeda “murder conspiracy.” But Osama’s move to Sudan was synchronized with a simultaneous investment in Sudan by his bin Laden brothers, including an airport construction project that was largely subsidized by the Saudi royal family.[89]

A great deal of confusion surrounds the circumstances of bin Laden’s displacement in 1991-92, from Saudi Arabia via Pakistan and perhaps Afghanistan) to the Sudan. But in these conflicted accounts one fact is not contested: bin Laden’s trip was initially arranged by someone in the royal family.[90] Steven Coll in Ghost Wars reports that this person was Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki, who blamed it on pressure from the U.S:

Peter Tomsen and other emissaries from Washington discussed the rising Islamist threat with [Saudi intelligence chief] Prince Turki in the summer of 1991…. At some of the meetings between Turki and the CIA, Osama bin Laden’s name came up explicitly. The CIA continued to pick up reporting that he was funding radicals such as Hekmatyar in Afghanistan….. “His family has disowned him,” Turki assured the Americans about bin Laden. Every effort had been made to persuade bin Laden to stop protesting against the Saudi royal family. These efforts had failed, Turki conceded, and the kingdom was now prepared to take sterner measures…. Bin Laden learned of this when Saudi police arrived at his cushion-strewn, modestly furnished compound in Jeddah to announce that he would have to leave the kingdom. According to an account later provided to the CIA by a source in Saudi intelligence, the officer assigned to carry out the expulsion assured bin Laden that this was being done for his own good. The officer blamed the Americans. The U.S. government was planning to kill him, he told bin Laden, by this account, so the royal family would get him out of the kingdom for his own protection. The escort put bin Laden on a plane out of Saudi Arabia.[91]

Coll’s magistral but privileged book appeared in February 2004. Six months later the 9/11 Commission Report published a quite different account, implying that by 1991 the Saudi government was estranged from bin Laden:

The Saudi government… undertook to silence Bin Laden by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.[92]

Lawrence Wright claims that the prince returning Osama’s passport was Interior Minister Prince Naif, after bin Laden persuaded him he was needed in Peshawar “in order to help mediate the civil war among the mujahideen.”[93] Prince Naif, the most anti-American of the senior Saudi royals, gave back bin Laden’s passport on one condition, that he “sign a pledge that he would not interfere with the politics of South Arabia or any Arab country.”[94]

The “Islamic gathering” is almost certainly a reference to the on-going negotiations in Peshawar which eventually produced the Saudi-backed Peshawar Accord (finalized in April 1992) to end the Afghan Civil War. By several well-informed accounts, Bin Laden did play an important part in these negotiations, in furtherance (I would argue) of Prince Tuki’s own policies. Like Sheikh Rahman before him in 1990, bin Laden tried, vainly, to negotiate a truce between the warring mujahideen leaders, Massoud and Hekmatyar. In these negotiations (according to Peter Tomsen, who was there), Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda were all united in seeking the same objective: a united Sunni army that (in opposition to American appeals for Shia representation) that could retake Kabul by force.[95]

Thus I believe it is quite clear that bin Laden, in his mediation attempts to bring Hekmatyar into the Peshawar consensus, was acting in line with official Saudi and Pakistani interests. Others disagree. Without documentation, the author of the Frontline biography of bin Laden asserts,

Contrary to what is always reiterated bin Laden has never had official relations with the Saudi regime or the royal family. All his contacts would happen through his brothers.[96] …. Specifically he had no relation with Turki al-Faisal head of Saudi intelligence. He used to be very suspicious of his role in Afghanistan and once had open confrontation with him in 1991 and accused him of being the reason of the fight between Afghan factions.[97]

Michael Scheuer, once head of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, endorsed this claim, and reinforced it with the testimony of Sa’ad al-Faqih (a critic of the Saudi royal family who has been accused by the U.S. Treasury of being affiliated with al-Qaeda) that, “after the Soviets withdrew ‘Saudi intelligence [officers] were actually increasing the gap between Afghani factions to keep them fighting.’”[98]

But this claim if true must have beenafter Kabul fell to the jihadis in 1992, when Massoud, backed by the favored Saudi client Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, began to fight Hekmatyar, the favored client of Pakistan’s ISI. Before this time the U.S. State Department’s Afghan policy was to promote a broad-based opposition to the rump Communist government in Kabul, while “side-lining the extremists,” including both Hekmatyar and Sayyaf.[99]

Pakistan’s ISI in the same period clearly wanted a strong rebel alliance united behind Hekmatyar, and both the CIA and the Saudis continued to support them. As Barnett Rubin reports, “During this period, political ‘unity’ of some sort among the mujahidin groups was a major goal of U.S.-Pakistani-Saudi policy.”[100]And in 1990-91, as Washington cut its allocation for the CIA’s covert Afghan program by 60 percent, Prince Turki more than made up for the shortfall by increased contributions from Saudi Arabia.[101]

I conclude that bin Laden’s mediation efforts in Peshawar in 1991 were in accordance with Prince Turki’s preferences, just as did Ali Mohamed, in organizing bin Laden’s subsequent move from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Sudan. As Steve Coll reports, the break between bin Laden and the Saudi royal family did not become serious until 1993, after the involvement of bin Laden’s ally Sheikh Rahman in the first WTC bombing.[102]

Meanwhile Saudi royal support for this web of radical organizations, in which Ali Mohamed was a central organizer and trainer, continued until at least 1995, well after the WTC bombing of 1993. Anthony Summers reports that Turki may have personally renewed a deal with bin Laden as late as 1998:

In sworn statements after 9/11, former Taliban intelligence chief Mohammed Khaksar said that in 1998 the prince sealed a deal under which bin Laden undertook not to attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would provide funds and material assistance to the Taliban…. Saudi businesses, meanwhile, would ensure that money also flowed directly to bin Laden. Turki would deny after 9/11 that any such deal was done with bin Laden. One account has it, however, that he himself met with bin Laden – his old protégé from the days of the anti-Soviet jihad – during the exchanges that led to the deal.[103]

In 1991 the Soviet troops had been out of Kabul for two years; and, as former US Ambassador Tomsen has reported, the CIA’s objective of a Pakistan-backed military overthrow in Kabul was at odds with the official U.S. policy of support for “a political settlement restoring Afghanistan’s independence.”[104] Ambassador Tomsen himself told the CIA Station Chief in Islamabad (Bill) that, by endorsing Pakistan’s military attack on Kabul,

he was violating fundamental U.S. policy precepts agreed to in Washington by his own agency. American policy was to cut Hekmatyar off, not build him up. Bill looked at me impassively as I spoke. I assumed his superiors in Langley had approved the offensive. The U.S. government was conducting two diametrically opposed Afghan policies.[105]

Steve Coll agrees that “By early 1991, the Afghan policies pursued by the State Department and the CIA were in open competition with each other…. The CIA…continued to collaborate with Pakistani military intelligence on a separate military track that mainly promoted Hekmatyar and other Islamist commanders.”[106]

This conflict between the State Department and CIA was far from unprecedented. In particular it recalled the CIA-State conflict in Laos in 1959-60, which led to a tragic war in Laos, and eventually Vietnam.[107] Just as oil companies had a stake in that conflict, so too in 1990-92 the CIA was thinking not just of Afghanistan but of the oil resources of Central Asia, where some of the al-Kifah-trained “Arab Afghans” were about to focus their attention.

The State Department in Afghanistan represented the will of the National Security Council and the public state. The CIA, on the other hand, was not “rogue” (as has sometimes been suggested), it was pursuing the goals of oil companies and their financial backers – or what I have called the deep state — in preparing for a launch into the former Soviet republics of central Asia.

In 1991 the leaders of Central Asia “began to hold talks with Western oil companies, on the back of ongoing negotiations between Kazakhstan and the US company Chevron.”[108] The first Bush Administration actively supported the plans of U.S. oil companies to contract for exploiting the resources of the Caspian region, and also for a pipeline not controlled by Moscow that could bring the oil and gas production out to the west.

In the same year 1991, Richard Secord, Heinie Aderholt, and Ed Dearborn, three veterans of U.S. operations in Laos, and later of Oliver North’s operations with the Contras, turned up in Baku under the cover of an oil company, MEGA Oil.[109] This was at a time when the first Bush administration had expressed its support for an oil pipeline stretching from Azerbaijan across the Caucasus to Turkey.[110] MEGA never did find oil, but did contribute materially to the removal of Azerbaijan from the sphere of post-Soviet Russian influence.

As MEGA operatives in Azerbaijan, Secord, Aderholt, Dearborn, and their men engaged in military training, passed “brown bags filled with cash” to members of the government, and above all set up an airline on the model of Air America which soon was picking up hundreds of mujahedin mercenaries in Afghanistan.[111] (Secord and Aderholt claim to have left Azerbaijan before the mujahedin arrived.)

Meanwhile, Hekmatyar, who at the time was still allied with bin Laden, was “observed recruiting Afghan mercenaries [i.e. Arab Afghans] to fight in Azerbaijan against Armenia and its Russian allies.”[112]Hekmatyar was a notorious drug trafficker; and, at this time, heroin flooded from Afghanistan through Baku into Chechnya, Russia, and even North America.[113]

Bin Laden, Ali Mohamed, and the Saudi Royal Family

By attempting to negotiate Hekmatyar’s reconciliation with the other Peshawar commanders, bin Laden in 1991 was clearly an important part of this CIA effort. So, a year earlier, had been the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman:

In 1990, after the assassination of Abdullah Azzam, Abd al-Rahman was invited to Peshawar, where his host was Khalid al-Islambouli, brother of one of the assassins of Sadat…. On this trip, reportedly paid for by the CIA, Abd al-Rahman preached to the Afghans about the necessity of unity to overthrow the Kabul regime.[114]

This presumably was shortly before Sheikh Abdul Rahman, even though he was on a State Department terrorist watch list after being imprisoned for the murder of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, was issued a multiple-entry U.S. visa in 1990 “by a CIA officer working undercover in the consular section of the American embassy in Sudan.”[115] This was the same CIA-sponsored program that six years earlier had admitted Ali Mohamed, “a visa-waiver program that was … designed to shield valuable assets or those who have performed valuable services for the country.”[116]

And Ali Mohamed himself was, according to the New York Times, part of the CIA’s plan for a military solution: “In the fall of 1992, Mr. Mohamed returned to fight in Afghanistan, training rebel commanders in military tactics, United States officials said.”[117] Before this, Mohamed had been charged with the major task of moving bin Laden, his four wives, and his seventeen children from Afghanistan to Sudan. The task was a major one, for Osama moved with his assistants, “a stable of Arabian horses, and bulldozers.”[118]

The Turki-bin Laden connection, which was cemented by Turki’s chief of staff and bin Laden’s teacher Ahmed Badeeb, may have been renewed as late as 1998:

In sworn statements after 9/11, former Taliban intelligence chief Mohammed Khaksar said that in 1998 the prince sealed a deal under which bin Laden undertook not to attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would provide funds and material assistance to the Taliban…. Saudi businesses, meanwhile, would ensure that money also flowed directly to bin Laden. Turki would deny after 0/11 that any such deal was done with bin Laden. One account has it, however, that he himself met with bin Laden – his old protégé from the days of the anti-Soviet jihad – during the exchanges that led to the deal.[119]

Bin Laden’s move to the Sudan in 1991-92, the move organized by Ali Mohamed, appears to have been done in collaboration with his family. There is hotly contested evidence that Osama participated with his brothers in the construct

Posted in USAComments Off on US Government “Protection” of Al-Qaeda Terrorists and the US-Saudi “Black Hole”

Australian ex-deputy PM slams ‘Jewish lobby’ over criticism of Pope Pius XII


Former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, right, is introduced to Pope Benedict XVI, left, by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, center, at a farewell ceremony at Sydney airport on July 21, 2008. (photo credit: AP/Andrew Brownbill)

Times of Israel

A former deputy prime minister of Australia attacked the “Jewish lobby” for what he considers unfair treatment of pope Pius XII, prompting Jewish groups to accuse him of anti-Semitism.

In an interview with Australian media, Tim Fischer suggested that a “Jewish lobby” controlled by Israel silences attempts to defend the wartime pope’s record. This lobby needed “momentum and profile” and had become “increasingly shrill” in its criticism of the pope, he said.

“The American Jewish lobby is run by hardliners who get their daily feed from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and will cut no slack in terms of Israel’s policies in the West Bank,” Fischer wrote in a new book about his term as ambassador to the Holy See, which ended last year.

Jewish groups often criticize Pius XII for his behavior during the Holocaust, lamenting that he did not vocally oppose the Nazis.

But Fischer, who served as Australia’s deputy prime minister from 1996 until 1999, contended that Pius did save thousands of Jews in Italy but “gets zero credit,” according to a report in Fairfax Media, an Australian media company.

“In fact, according to Mr. Fischer, Pius instructed Catholics to help Jews, hiding hundreds in convents, monasteries and the Vatican. The Nazis rounded up 1,002 of Rome’s 8,000 Jews in 1943 and sent them to Auschwitz, but the other 7,000 were saved,” the Australian media conglomerate reported.

In “Holy See, Unholy Me: 1000 Days in Rome,” which hit bookstands last week in Melbourne, Fischer identified Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev “as a key figure” regarding the Jewish lobby’s media power, according to Fairfax. The Jews’ prowess in manipulating public opinion beats that of the Vatican, Fischer reportedly said, adding that their tactics “are about representing a cause and maintaining influence and power.”

Regev, who was born and raised in Melbourne before he immigrated to Israel, said he had no comment about Fischer’s allegations.

“This is very standard anti-Semitic fare,” said Efraim Zuroff, the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Israel office. “This is one of the classic fundamentals of anti-Semitic propaganda: the notion of Jews controlling the world, either through financial markets or the media, or both. People conjure up a specter of nefarious international conspiracy run by Jews.”

Zuroff opined that Fischer was using the accusations as a way to drum up sales.

Fischer told Fairfax he expected to be criticized for his comments, “but hoped fair-minded people would read the book.”

In the book, Fischer wrote that “Jewish lobby’s” influence in sullying the name of the Vatican bubbled to the surface when an Israeli diplomat ostensibly defended Pope Pius’s wartime record but later partially retracted his statement after a huge backlash from Jewish organizations.

In 2011, Israeli ambassador to the Holy See Mordechai Levy said that “it would be a mistake to say that the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the pope himself opposed actions to save the Jews. To the contrary, the opposite is true.”

The comments were conceived to be surprisingly warm, since Israel and Jewish groups had hitherto accused Pius of not having used his prominent position to forcefully protest the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

“For any ambassador to make such specious comments is morally wrong. For the Israeli envoy to do so is particularly hurtful to Holocaust survivors who suffered grievously because of Pius’s silence,” said Elan Steinberg, the vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants. Other Jewish organizations made similar comments, prompting Levy to quickly issue a clarification.

“Given the fact that this context is still under the subject of ongoing and future research, passing my personal historical judgment on it was premature,” the diplomat stated.

Fischer told Fairfax that he thought Levy was forced into a “humiliating backdown.”

“Further, the moment any suggestion is made to consider Pius XII for beatification and sainthood, they hit out at close to full power and use all media avenues to stamp it out,” he said.

Pope Pius XII (photo credit: (Wikipedia commons/Ambrosius007)
Pope Pius XII (photo credit: (Wikipedia commons/Ambrosius007)

Officially, Israel identifies with criticism over Pius’s alleged silence yet calls for more work to be done to better assess the historical facts. “It is the known position of many among Jewish communities and in Israel that Pius remained silent when a strong moral voice needed to be raised,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said. “His historical role, however, must be determined by historians who need free and full access to relevant archives [in the Vatican].”

Last year, the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum, based on new research, changed the wording on one of its panels to soften its criticism of Pius. It used to state that the pope “did not intervene” when the Nazis deported Jews from Rome to Auschwitz. Now it says that he “did not publicly protest.” The text further says that Pius “abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of the Jews” in 1942.

The new text notes that critics consider the pontiff’s lack of public protest a “moral failure,” while defenders emphasize that his neutrality “prevented harsher measures against the Vatican and the Church’s institutions throughout Europe, thus enabling a considerable number of secret rescue activities to take place at different levels of the Church.”

The panel at the museum now ends with this sentence: “Until all relevant material is available to scholars, this topic will remain open to further inquiry.”

Fischer, a 67-year-old Vietnam War veteran, is no stranger to controversy surrounding Israel.

In 1997, when he was deputy prime minister, he withdrew an invitation to Australia he had previously extended to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, because then-prime minister John Howard felt such a visit was “inappropriate.” At the time, the Palestinian representative in Australia said pressure from local Jewish groups was behind the cancellation, although senior community officials said they had nothing to do with it.

In 2006, Fischer stated unequivocally that an Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty during the Six Day War was “a deliberate attack by the Israeli air force.” Both Washington and Jerusalem investigated the incident and concluded that the attack, which killed 34 crew members, was an accident, although some survivors claim it was deliberate.

“By resurrecting this long discredited calumny, the only thing Fischer proves is his own deep-seated bias against Israel,” Ted Lapkin, the director of policy analysis at the Australia Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, responded at the time to Fischer’s assertion.

Posted in Europe, CampaignsComments Off on Australian ex-deputy PM slams ‘Jewish lobby’ over criticism of Pope Pius XII

Zionist Puppet’s Hariri says Hezbollah Resistance against IsraHell outdated

Former Lebanese prime minister calls on Shiite  group to disarm, slams it for fighting in Syria Former prime minister of Lebanon Zionist puppet’s Saad Hariri joined a growing chorus against Hezbollah over the weekend, calling on the organization to disarm and saying it was no longer needed.Hariri’s statement came after a rare public speech by Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah Friday in which he called for the elimination of IsraHell.“The idea … that Lebanon needs the weapons of the resistance [Hezbollah] in order to face the IsraHell threat… is an idea that has expired, Zionist Hariri said in a television address later Friday, reported by AFP on Sunday.
[ed notes:what a dullard ”sigh” read next headline from today see yellow highlighted part please!!

 Qahwaji Warns of Sleeper Terrorist Cells: No Politician is Permitted to Communicate with Army through Certain Officer or Soldier
Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji stressed on Tuesday that the Army Command will be strict in addressing ties between officers and political leaderships. He said during a meeting with high-ranking officers: “No politician is permitted to communicate with the army through an officer or a soldier.” Contacts between politicians and military officers should take place with the Army Command’s approval, he added. Moreover, Qahwaji lauded the efforts exerted by the security agencies in recent years to achieve stability in Lebanon. “The army has proven that it is capable of preventing any unrest in Lebanon through all possible political and military means,” he added. “This does not mean that Lebanon has made it through the danger zone, but it is nearing it[[[[[[[given the severity of the developments in Syria and the region” and the constant threat of IsraHell, remarked the army commander]]]]]]. He therefore urged officers to exercise more diligence to confront various dangers, most notably terrorism as demonstrated through last week’s rocket attack in the Baabda region. On this note, Qahwaji revealed that the army had discovered a number of sleeper terrorist cells, adding that remaining ones should be uncovered.
 Suleiman stressed on Thursday that the army would be the sole defender of Lebanon and the country’s borders if its capabilities were improved. “There is no security and dignity without the army,” he said, adding it needs an embracing environment because it “doesn’t act independently from the state.” He appealed for political support to the army, saying “there should be a campaign in support of the military and not against it at this delicate stage.” He made his remarks during a ceremony marking the 68th anniversary of the Lebanese army’s founding. Later that day, unknown assailants fired two rockets in the Baabda region near the Officers’ Club. The perpetrators remain at large.

 [ed notes:regarding buzz buzzard hariri comment just today, ”sigh” Fresh IsraHell breach of Lebanese airspace 
also see… IDF’s Druze Battalion Tests New Techniques for Fighting Hezbollah,not the fraud syria rebels 

Posted in LebanonComments Off on Zionist Puppet’s Hariri says Hezbollah Resistance against IsraHell outdated

Rohani condemns foreign meddling in Syria crisis

Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi (L) meets with Iranian President Hassan Rohani in Tehran, August 4, 2013.
Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi (L) meets with Iranian President Hassan Rohani in Tehran, August 4, 2013.
Iran’s new President Hassan Rohani says Tehran condemns any foreign interference in the ongoing crisis in Syria.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran … condemns terrorist [activities] and foreign intervention in Syria,” said the Iranian President during a meeting with Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi in Tehran on Sunday.

Rohani added that continued unrest in Syria was unfortunate and expressed hope that lasting peace and stability would return to the Arab country.

The Syrian premier, for his part, congratulated Rohani on his election as Iran’s new president, delivering a written message from President Bashar al-Assad to his Iranian counterpart.

Halqi also presented a report on the developments in Syria, expressing gratitude to the Iranian nation and government for their support and assistance towards resolving the matter.

Highlighting friendly relations between the two countries, the Syrian prime minister called for stronger Tehran-Damascus ties in all areas.

Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since 2011. Western powers and their regional allies, including the Israeli regime, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, continue to support militant groups such al-Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Arab country.

Halqi took part in the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s new president in Tehran later on Sunday, which was attended by Iranian officials as well as foreign dignitaries.

On Saturday, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei formally endorsed Rohani for a four-year term in office.

– See more at:

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Rohani condemns foreign meddling in Syria crisis

120 Children Slaughtered in Syria’s Tal Abyad by Zio-NATO Rat’s

120 Children Slaughtered in Syria's Tal Abyad
Terrorists affiliated to the al-Nusra Front massacred 120 children and 330 men and women in Syria’s Northern district of Tal Abyad, media reports said on Monday.

According to al-Alam, terrorists attacked villages in Tal Abyad, near al-Hasakah governorate, killing civilians including women and children.

The Kurdish dominated region of Tal Abyad located in North of Al-Raqqa governorate, was already volatile after terrorist groups from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and al-Nusra Front attacked the region weeks ago to take it under control.

Deadly clashes have been going on in the region as Kurds gathered volunteer fighters and started to stand against terrorists.

Kurds have come under attack in Aleppo as well, where earlier this week terrorists launched an assault on Tal Aran and Tal Hasel, killing and abducting many people and forcing others to leave.

Videos posted online by the militant groups showed hundreds of women and children in Tal Aran, lying dead on the ground after their homes and plant fields were bombed.

Residents said the brutal attack on their homes reminded them of the Kurdish genocide, called al-Anfal Campaign, committed by slain Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s.

Mass killings at the hands of terrorists have been increasing in Syria during the past month.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said on Sunday that the Syrian army has no option but to continue its operations against rebels while political means have been stalled due to changing stances by the Syrian western-backed opposition.

The war in Syria started in March 2011, when pro-reform protests turned into a massive insurgency following the intervention of western and regional states.

The unrest, which took in terrorist groups from across Europe, the Middle-East and North Africa, has transpired as one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent history.

As the foreign-backed insurgency in Syria continues without an end in sight, the US government has boosted its political and military support to Takfiri extremists.

Washington has remained indifferent about warnings by Russia and other world powers about the consequences of arming militant groups.


Posted in SyriaComments Off on 120 Children Slaughtered in Syria’s Tal Abyad by Zio-NATO Rat’s

Foreign Ministry official to hold ‘meeting’ in Israel’s virtual Persian Gulf embassy

 Senior Israeli diplomat to hold Twitter chat with Gulf residents in unusual direct and public channel of communication.It is no secret that Israel has various degrees of communication, commerce and cooperation with the Persian Gulf countries. [[[[It is also no secret that all this contact is usually held behind closed doors, far from the public eye]]]].This will change Tuesday when Foreign Ministry director-general Rafi Barak is scheduled to hold a Twitter chat on the “official channel of the virtual Israeli embassy to GCC countries.” The ministry opened the Twitter account last month, and defined it as “dedicated to promoting dialogue with the people of the GCC region.” The GCC, or Gulf Cooperation Council, includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain.
By 8 p.m. Monday night, the virtual embassy had some 1,043 followers, and had tweeted 57 times.
On Monday, the following tweet appeared: “Want to know what #Israel thinks about the #GCC? Israel’s top diplomat is ready to respond live! Tuesday 6/8 @ 12:15 (Riyadh time) #EidTalk.”[[[[Another tweet read, “Who’s behind @IsraelintheGCC? Live Q&A with Director General of Israel Foreign Ministry!”]]]]] 
[[[What makes the scheduled “Eidtalk” unusual is not only that it will be a direct and public channel of communication between a high-level Israeli diplomat and the Persian Gulf, but also because it will be with Barak, a veteran diplomat who has remained well out of the Israeli public’s eye – rarely giving interviews – since taking over the key post in 2011.]]]]]According to the ministry, the “EidTalk” will be in Arabic and English.
So far, the fare posted on the account in English of the virtual embassy has been relatively tame, though the responses have not always followed suit.On July 18 there was a “Ramadan Kareem greeting all the #gcc countries peoples wishing #peace and #humanity to all muslims.” 
This elicited a number of responses that varied from the pleasant –“Good job Israel. Hope this initiative will bring a much needed dialogue b/w Israel and other GCC Countries” – to the nasty – “@IsraelintheGCC to all muslims? Then stop killing and torturing them!”Other tweets ranged from wishing a “Happy Renaissance Day (June 23) to the people of #Oman,” (“It’s July 23 you Zionists,” someone responded), to a tweet with a link to a site introducing an Israeli innovation that turns air into drinking water.A number of postings on the account said that they hoped the virtual embassy would be a prelude to a real one.
Israel does have a single representation in the Persian Gulf, but – in an indication of the degree to which these ties are kept completely out of the public eye – it is not even willing to say where it is. The mission’s existence came to light a few months ago when a Finance Ministry document presented to the cabinet showed that one of 11 new Israeli representations set up from 2010-2012 was established in the Gulf.
Officials from the Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s Office would not, however, reveal where it was established.
Israel maintained interest sections in Qatar and Oman in the past, but they were both closed shortly after the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000  
(ed note: then it qatar…quietly reopened again behind the scenes ).

[ed note:quick correction,.the Israhelli trade office in doha was open as recently as *2006!!!!it had trade offices with many  Zionist arab pagan regimes in gcc and outside as well…,”Syria notable exception” !!! see list here,

Qatar’s Relations with Israel: Challenging Arab and Gulf Norms (extract) Middle East Journal, The › Vol. 63 Nbr. 3, July 2009 
also see…even more recently… ZIONIST QATAR …IN BUSINESS WITH ISRAHELL

and of course, the latest zionist qatar hosts zionists at us islamic world forum


extra reading.. The Political Potential of Israel-GCC Business Relations
Shaham, Dahlia
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Abstract: The economic discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict and peace process has been governed over the years by two contradicting paradigms: the Arab Boycott and the vision of the New Middle East  It focuses on the special case of the GCC states, which are the richest and most globalized economies in the region. The second chapter outlines the history of Israeli-GCC relations; the third chapter exposes the reality of the officially non-existent Israel-GCC business relations – the sectors in which they are created and the bypass mechanisms used to facilitate them.

 The first two summits held in Casablanca (1994) and Amman (1995) were covered with great enthusiasm, primarily by Israeli and international media. Proclamation of visions of economic cooperation along the lines of the European Community abounded.54 The conferences resulted in some private sector joint ventures between Israeli, Egypt and Jordan, but most of the achievements were in drawing foreign investors to the region. 1997 Doha summit Qatar, who hosted the conference, was focused on concluding deals with foreign, non-regional, partners to develop its natural gas exports. Deals between Israeli and Arab businessmen were largely sealed behind closed doors:55 Plotkin
GCC states and Israel. Gawdat Bahgat points to three paradoxes that shape the politics of Saudi Arabia:81″The country is the birthplace of Islam, but increasingly the main challenge to Saudi national security is Islamic fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia holds the world’s largest oil reserves, but a growing number of Saudis are unemployed and living poverty. For more than half a century the kingdom has been an ally to the United States. However […] [o]ne f the major problems facing the Saudi leaders has been how to explain to their domestic constituency their close cooperation with the United States, Israel’s closest ally”.While all three paradoxes are manifested in other GCC states as well, they are by far the most prominent in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the only GCC state that formally enacts the Shariah as state law and its role as the guardian of the holy places to Islam is a significant factor in its foreign policy. Its population is the largest in the GCC, accounting for 66% of the entire region, and is also the poorest in terms of GDP per Capita.
Saudi Arabia’s accession to the WTO also signified a shift towards greater integration of the GCC into the global economy and structures of economic global governance.126 This trend too undermines the GCC states’ ability to uphold the appearance of the boycott. Leading multinational companies, such as Intel and IBM, run centers in Israel, for R&D and manufacturing. Israeli start-ups are also bought by leading multinationals.166 It is in this respect that the information revolution has made the secondary and tertiary boycotts practically impossible. Israeli technology prevails in the field of internet software solutions. The global market share of IBM and Intel alone is indicative of the fact that companies and individuals in the GCC are not upholding the indirect boycotts.
The primary boycott does not apply to most Israeli ITC products, since they are primary inputs that into further manufacturing elsewhere, or web software solutions that are sold to other web-services suppliers. Nonetheless, there are some niches in the Israeli high tech industry that meet direct demand in GCC countries. These include primarily solutions for telecommunication infrastructure (e.g. Nice Systems), logistic solutions for supply chain management (e.g. Retalix) and information security solutions (e.g. Checkpoint). Demand for such businesses in the GCC states comes primarily from Governments, who have been investing heavily in ITC infrastructure as part of the diversification policy, and partly from foreign companies that have set up shop in the GCC It is worth noting that trade in this sector is particularly sensitive. Israel’s hi-tech industry is known to have grown out of, and in tight collaboration with Israeli military intelligence. This factor raises suspicion concerning the security implications of allowing Israeli companies access and influence on the information and telecommunications grid in the Gulf. Nonetheless, businessmen I interviewed indicated that it is a field in which trade is known to exist.

Posted in Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Foreign Ministry official to hold ‘meeting’ in Israel’s virtual Persian Gulf embassy

Al-qaeda(west’s tools) dont mind a secular govt in turkey at all


 During the 2½ years of clashes in Syria, there has been constant debate about how Turkey’s borders were crossed. There were reports that Islamic groups going to fight regime of President Bashar al-Assad — first and foremost al-Qaeda, which has supporters in Turkey — were crossing over the Turkish border.
Interesting claims

 To find out more, we met with people close to al-Qaeda in Istanbul. These people are shopkeepers who live in the Fatih district of Istanbul, but who won’t give their names. They have interesting things to say about the Syrian war. These sources told us that following the eruption of war in Syria, al-Qaeda elements from Europe, the Caucasus, Afghanistan and North Africa began crossing into Syria via Turkey. These sources also had interesting things to say about the clashes with the Kurdish PYD and how the border is crossed.
Met by intelligence officials
O.E., one of our sources, said he crossed the border and went to Syria before the Jabhat al-Nusra-PYD clashes. He crossed from an unsupervised area on the Turkish side to the Syrian side controlled by the PYD. O.E. said, “We told the PYD we were there for Jabhat al-Nusra and they let us pass.” O.E. said many people cross the same way: “Fighters coming via Chechnya and Afghanistan are met at the Syrian border. There are intelligence officials there. Those crossing the border inform the intelligence people of their affiliation and under whose command they will be. Then, they cross the border and report to their units.”Al-Qaeda Militants Travel To Syria Via Turkey 
1,000 Chechens to Syria
 O.E. said Chechens are now one of the strongest groups in Syria. “Under their commander Abu Omar, about 1,000 Chechens came to Syria. First they were with Jabhat al-Nusra, but now they have moved over to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS),” he said.
 There are also Turks
 O.E. said many Turks had gone to Syria to fight. “Some were martyred. Some stayed for a while and returned. Some couldn’t resist going back to Syria. A retired policeman who is a friend of mine went to Syria to fight. He trained fighters in weapons. Several of us went to Syria before the fighting between the PYD and Jabhat al-Nusra broke out. Without being asked anything on the Turkish side, we just crossed to an area of Syria controlled by the PYD. We told them we came to [fight with] Jabhat al-Nusra and they let us enter,” O.E. said.
The ISIS fans the clashes
O.E. claimed that it was the ISIS that was flaming the clashes with the PYD. “The ISIS declared that Jabhat al-Nusra was its subordinate organization. Jabhat al-Nusra commanders refused this claim and said they were under al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. These claims caused disputes within the organization. Chechen groups under Abu Omar in Syria split from Jabhat al-Nusra and joined the ranks of the ISIS. It was the ISIS fighters who provoked the recent clashes with the PYD. Reports said the ISIS entered and opened fire in PYD-controlled villages to disrupt the non-hostility agreement between the PYD and Jabhat al-Nusra,” he concluded.

[ed notes:its a beautiful thing to watch the al qaeda cells(directed by west and its gulf client regimes)move about thru turkey,and even engaging in peace talks with turkey,  while west keeps silent,proving they have no issue with its regional allies and their open ties to group!!!!

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Al-qaeda(west’s tools) dont mind a secular govt in turkey at all

Extremist Preacher Denies Al-Qaeda’s Presence in Lebanon

 News recently spread on Lebanese websites about the first conference held by al-Qaeda in Lebanon in the northern city of Tripoli. The websites reported that the Salafist preacher Sheikh Omar Bakri Fostock participated in the conference, titled “The Islamic Forum for Estranged Sunnis in Lebanon.” Meanwhile, al-Qaeda’s black flags — bearing the expression, “There is no god except God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God” — were raised in the Marj Zhour square in ​​the Abi Samra district of Tripoli. In an exclusive interview with Al-Monitor on July 30, 2013, Bakri said that he “refuses to describe any person raising the black flag of the Messenger of God as an al-Qaeda member, a terrorist or a takfiri, in addition to other descriptions used by some to justify the arrests of supporters of the Syrian revolution in Lebanon.” Bakri added, “Nowadays, no one can stop us from carrying these black flags, the flags of the noble Prophet. [[[[We are not to be held responsible if al-Qaeda carries the same flags.”]]]]]]
Regarding the reasons for holding the Islamic Forum for Sunnis, Bakri said, “This forum is held at the behest of a large number of Muslim families in Lebanon. I personally raised the issue of holding cultural religious forums, including various activities aimed to enhance cultural and educational communication. We are present in the north as Islamist groups, but we have no awareness-raising activities. This project is the result of a cultural, educational and social demand; and it also aims at discussing the (((Islamic ummah [[[outside of Lebanon]]]]] [[[[and our relationship with it.]]]]]”))))Bakri, who does not hide his sympathy and support for al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, told Al-Monitor that al-Qaeda does not have a presence in Lebanon, just as there is no presence for Jabhat al-Nusra at the organizational level.
He explained, “If al-Qaeda had a presence in Lebanon, I would have announced it. Moreover, the organizations that do exist [in Lebanon] include several Islamic movements supporting the Syrian revolution, but which have nothing to do with Jabhat al-Nusra.”Bakri is a Syrian national from Aleppo who is also a Lebanese citizen and resides in the city of Tripoli. He is the leader of the Al-Muhajiroun Organization, officially disbanded by the British authorities in October 2000. After 20 years in London, he was deported to Lebanon in 2005 on charges of helping terrorists. The British daily Telegraph reported on May 24, 2013, that Michael Adebolajo, who executed the Woolwich attack that led to the death of a British soldier in May 2013, knew Bakri and had listened to one of his lectures in which he said that the beheading of enemies is permissible. Moreover, Bakri praised Adebolajo’s courage.
On the other hand, the Lebanese Military Court had sentenced Bakri to life imprisonment in November 2010, after convicting him of the crime of participating in the formation of the terrorist group, Fatah al-Islam, that aimed to carry out terrorist attacks by explosives, to transfer weapons and ammunition and to train terrorists. Bakri was released two weeks after his arrest, but his case has not closed yet.When asked about the presence of armed Islamic groups in northern Lebanon and about the ongoing battles in Tripoli, Bakri said that these battles are fought on behalf of the March 8 and March 14 coalitions’ forces, indicating that some political figures supported these armed groups. “I am sure there are radical extremist ideologies refusing the other and using violence, just like secular movements who do not accept the other as well. This is due to Hezbollah’s open intervention in the Syrian situation, which aggravated the situation in Lebanon, thus rendering it more likely to host the Islamic emirate,” continued Bakri.
Regarding the project of establishing an Islamic emirate in Lebanon, particularly in the north, Bakri said: “This idea is realistic and I think that it inspires all young Muslims, since some feel that the state, the army and Hezbollah are attacking Sunni Islamic doctrine.” He warned, “If the situation is not remedied, it will explode and this is all caused by the reckless actions of Hezbollah, which interfered in the Syrian war.”[[[[[“I have warned on several occasions that if the security events are not remedied, if the detainees are not released, if no pardon is issued for Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir and Fadel Shaker, and if Osama Mansour is not released, this will lead to security unrest with the army and in Jabal Mohsen as well.”]]]]]Assir is a Salafist sheikh who launched with his supporters a bloody battle against the Lebanese army in Abra last June. Assir fled from his compound along with the former singer Shaker to an unknown destination, while the army arrested Mansour, along with a terrorist cell, on the road to Baalbek in the Bekaa Valley in July 2013.
[[[[[It is strange that Bakri — who denies having any links to al-Qaeda or Jabhat al-Nusra, and who denies their presence in Lebanon — had told The Telegraph on Jan. 25, 2012, that al-Qaeda and his own al-Ghuraba group were ready to carry out suicide attacks against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He added, “In two or three operations, [al-Qaeda] can make the Baath party run away.”]]]]]In December 2012, Lebanese Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn confirmed the presence of al-Qaeda members in Lebanon, and said that weapons and some al-Qaeda members were being smuggled into Lebanon through illegal border crossings between Syria and Lebanon, particularly in the Lebanese border town of Arsal.  
Yet, Ghosn was targeted by media campaigns orchestrated by the March 14 forces.Lebanese security and political sources believe that Ghosn confirmed the presence of al-Qaeda in Lebanon based on reports by the Lebanese army’s Intelligence Directorate.Elias Farhat, a retired army general, confirmed to Al-Monitor the presence of al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra in Lebanon, and noted the role of some related groups in North Lebanon.Sheikh Hussam al-Sabbagh, who was accused by the Lebanese authorities of forming a Salafist group and of having links with Fatah al-Islam in 2007, is currently responsible for a group of hundreds of gunmen in Tripoli, who are involved in the battles against the Alawite-majority Jabal Mohsen neighborhood.
While some describe Sabbagh as being the first commander of Salafist jihadists in the city, others consider him the emir of al-Qaeda in the north.Nevertheless, Bakri denies the presence of any organizational links between Sabbagh and al-Qaeda, except for the connection among all Muslims, namely Islamic ideology and fraternity, and following the Quran and sunna as the good Salafists understood them[[[[[He indicated that the insistence of some Lebanese security services and media that Sabbagh is affiliated with al-Qaeda does discredit him, ]]]]][[[[[[but it increases his importance and status among Muslims. Bakri called on all Muslims in Lebanon to support Sabbagh and his brothers, and described him as “a commander of Sunni Islam in Tripoli and the north.”]]]]]]In April, 
Al-Monitor received security information confirming the presence of al-Qaeda in Lebanon, where the sources cited as examples Sabbagh’s group in Tripoli, and Kamal Bustani — one of his most prominent aides, known for working for al-Qaeda — the Ain ​​al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp group, and two other groups in Wadi Khaled and al-Qaa areas in the northern province of Akka.The story of al-Qaeda in Lebanon dates back to the attacks of Sep. 11, 2011, where it was found that Ziad Jarrah, a participant in the attacks, was a Lebanese national from the Bekaa. His death was announced by Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda’s leader at the time. In 2004, an al-Qaeda group planning to blow up the Italian embassy was arrested, and a member of the cell died while being investigated.  
The Lebanese military court tried a number of al-Qaeda members that carried out attacks targeting US chain restaurants in Beirut and Tripoli, attacks against the UNIFIL forces in Lebanon and that fired Katyusha rockets into Israel, for which al-Qaeda linked groups claimed responsibility. In an audio recording in September 2006, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri said, “Lebanon is a land of jihad, not a land of support, and that [jihadists] will fight the crusaders, through the UN forces stationed in the south.”The attack in Ain Alaq region of north Metn on Feb. 13, 2007, was conducted by Fatah al-Islam, led by Shaker al-Abssi, who fled after bloody battles with the Lebanese army in the northern Lebanese Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared. It is known that Abssi came from Iraq, embracing al-Qaeda’s ideas and influenced by the approach of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the emir of al-Qaeda in Iraq.A Lebanese expert on Islamist groups, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Al-Monitor on July 30 that there is a limited presence of al-Qaeda’s members and cells in Lebanon.
Yet, the organization has a lot of supporters who have a jihadist and intellectual approach that is similar to that of the group. He pointed out that these supporters form a favorable environment, from which al-Qaeda recruits its members.As for the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra, the same expert said that the Syrian war and infiltration of jihadist gunmen from both sides through the Lebanese-Syrian border has allowed groups of Jabhat al-Nusra and al-Qaeda to move into Lebanon. He said some of these groups are in northern Lebanon, and others are in the barren mountains of Arsal in the Bekaa and the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp in southern Lebanon.
[[[[Regarding the fact that some politicians and Islamists in Lebanon deny the presence of al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra in Lebanon, the Lebanese expert reminds us that Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria denied in January 2013 having links with al-Qaeda. Yet, a few months later the emir of Jabhat al-Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, affirmed allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.]]]]]] 

[ed notes:you remember the sheikh right?his daugther is a strip pole dancer lol 

Posted in LebanonComments Off on Extremist Preacher Denies Al-Qaeda’s Presence in Lebanon

Shoah’s pages