Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 5th, 2006, 10:06 AM        CIA disbands unit set up to hunt for bin Laden
http://today.reuters.com/News/Crises...ryId=N05339821

Tue 4 Jul 2006 3:23 PM ET
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON, July 4 (Reuters) - The CIA has disbanded a unit set up in the 1990s to oversee the spy agency's hunt for Osama bin Laden and transferred its duties to broader operations that track Islamist militant groups, a U.S. intelligence official said on Tuesday.

The bin Laden unit, codenamed Alec Station, became less valuable as a separate operation as counterterrorism operations eliminated top al Qaeda operatives and the movement's focus shifted more to regional networks of militants, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"Al Qaeda is no longer the hierarchical organization that it was before 9-11. Three-quarters of its senior leaders have been killed or captured," said the official, referring to the U.S.-led response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"What you have had since 9-11 is growth in the Islamic jihadist movement around the world among groups and individuals who may be associated with al Qaeda, and may have financial and operation links with al Qaeda, but have no command and control relationship with it," he added.

The official described the ending of the bin Laden unit as a "reallocation of resources" within the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. But he said the spy agency still has staff devoted full time to the tracking and analysis of intelligence related to bin Laden and other senior al Qaeda leaders.

"The bin Laden effort has been absorbed into a larger effort. It's now one part of an effort that looks at all of these jihadist organizations," the official said.

Alec Station, established in 1996 after bin Laden's initial calls for global jihad, employed about two dozen people. The operation was bolstered after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the bin Laden unit was disbanded late last year and quoted its first director, author Michael Scheuer, as predicting the move would denigrate the CIA's effort to find bin Laden.

Bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, are believed hiding in the mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

John Negroponte, the U.S. director of national intelligence, told the Senate in February that al Qaeda was a "battered" organization but that it remained the top concern for the intelligence community.

Negroponte noted the rise of other organizations inspired by al Qaeda. But he told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "These groups pose less danger to the United States homeland than does al Qaeda, but they increasingly threaten our allies and interests abroad and are working to expand their reach and capabilities."

The Times said the decision to close the CIA's bin Laden unit was made by former Counterterrorism Center chief Robert Grenier, who decided the agency needed to reorganize to better address constant changes in terrorist organizations.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jul 5th, 2006, 10:32 AM       
Huh. Go figure.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Jul 12th, 2006, 09:43 AM       
Oh gee I wonder why...

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden (( http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm )) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?


Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 12th, 2006, 11:59 AM       
What does this lead you to believe, Geggy?

So is he fake, or is he not involved? Does the government blame the fake Bin Laden for 9/11, or do they not implicate him at all? Which nutjob conspiracy is it, Geggy? Please try to get them straight.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old Jul 12th, 2006, 04:48 PM       
There is also no hard evidence for any of your conspiracies Geggy. Think about it.....
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Jul 14th, 2006, 10:04 AM       
Oh I'm sorry that you have the inability to connect the dots. Should I hold your hands and do the thinking for you since you're incapable of figuring it out yourself?

Question you should be asking yourself...who benefited the most from the attacks...?

Stockholder/former CEO Cheney's Halliburton record profit 2005: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13189

"For every devastation, there is an opportunity..."

Bushes/bin Ladens' Carlyle Group profits:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0404-13.htm
"For every devastation, there is an opportunity..."

Afghanistan produces record breaking opium poppy crop 2005: http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2...05-369889.html
"For every devastation, there is an opportunity..."

Edit: fixed links
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #7  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 14th, 2006, 10:21 AM       
I think you should go help out the insurgency, Geggy. This crap needs to stop, am i right.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jul 14th, 2006, 09:52 PM       
tockholder/former CEO Cheney's Halliburton record profit 2005: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13189

"For every devastation, there is an opportunity..."

Bushes/bin Ladens' Carlyle Group profits:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13189


Those are the same links, geggy. They're both for haliburton.

the other link doesn't work either.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Jul 15th, 2006, 09:45 AM       
Threat of US strikes passed to taliban weeks before NY attack (sept 22 2001): http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...556279,00.html

Ahmed Massoud killed 2 days before 9/11 when he learnt of bin Laden's plan and began to warn the West: http://washingtontimes.com/world/200...3843-8110r.htm

Colin powell promised evidence pointing bin Laden's guilt (sept 24 2001)(oh really?): http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...5_main24.shtml

Bin Laden: "I am not involved with sept 11 attacks": http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

Usually osama would quickly take responsibility of several terror activities in the past but this time he denied it, why?

Hamid Kazai (former board of director of UNOCAL, president of Afghanistan) invited as guest of honor at Bush's state of the union address (2002): http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA29Ag02.html

"US officials say a growing opium drug trade in Afghanistan is also helping to support al Qaeda and the Taliban and the documents list nine current or former Afghan government figures as 'problem makers,' among them, Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghani president, Hamid Karzai": http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Se...zais_0624.html

More information at the ABC News blog The Blotter. These revelations more circumstantial or anecdotal evidence of "war on terror" as fraud and also perhaps strongly suggestive of the intimate relationship our own CIA has to the Pakistani ISI both of which worked together with the Saudis to provide billions in covert black ops dollars to create and support what eventaully morphed into Al-Qeada and which the CIA and military special forces partnered with, fought alongside and trained for the war in Kosovo and the Balkans conflicts.

This story is also strongly suggestive that Western interests, protected by do-nothing U.S. military persence have ties to the massive drug trade eminating from Afghanistan. Much of global drug traffic profits we know are laundered through the world's largest banks and Wall St. See Narco Dollars for Dummies at:

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0202/S00054.htm


Happy readings
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #10  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 15th, 2006, 11:38 AM       
Half of those links are garbage and undeserving of a response to begin with (Robert Fisk?).

The second link, the Wash. Times piece, is actually a pretty interesting report on how pakistan used the Taliban and Al Qaeda off of each other in order to exert their power in Afghanistan.

But you didn't get that, b/c you probably didn't even read it. You're the one filling in imaginery dots here, so rather than just giving us links that don't really support your claims, why don't you just say it? You should also try citing these claims with relevant articles, sport.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jul 15th, 2006, 12:16 PM       
I read that and the one about the Opium drug trade thing:

"Incredibly the secret documents were bought at an Afghanistan street bazaar. They were stored on a computer flash disc sold for $200 at this stall, a few hundred feet from the front gate of the US airbase in Bagram."
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #12  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 15th, 2006, 12:59 PM       
That's how Americans covertly run these operations. They make it look like a blunder, but they are really running the whole show. Clever bastards.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Jul 15th, 2006, 01:03 PM       
Yeah I wonder how it got there...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
The second link, the Wash. Times piece, is actually a pretty interesting report on how pakistan used the Taliban and Al Qaeda off of each other in order to exert their power in Afghanistan.
Oh jeez you should know better that mainstream press only tells you half of the story but never the rest.

Now you know that parts of the isi agnecy supported and financed al Qaeda and you should also know that its already been established that the isi has worked in operations with help of the cia in the past. Moments before the start of cold war the cia used isi agents as inside players to funnel billions of dollars into islamist extremist groups in afghanistan for them to fight the soviets.

Mamod Ahmed the chief of isi was exposed by the wallstreet newspaper (the name daniel pearl ring the bell?) that he ordered the funneling of 100,000 dollars to the lead hijacker Atta just few days before 9/11. Why was this info not addressed in the commission report? Why has he not been questioned and put on trial but instead was forced to retire as chief of the isi by the president of pakistan? Are they afraid he may reveal too much?

Fact: Ahmed was in DC on 9/11 and met with top officials of different US agencies, including george tenet, before the attack took place.
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #14  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 15th, 2006, 02:06 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
Oh jeez you should know better that mainstream press only tells you half of the story but never the rest.
So why did you bother citing it to support your claims?

Quote:
Now you know that parts of the isi agnecy supported and financed al Qaeda and you should also know that its already been established that the isi has worked in operations with help of the cia in the past. Moments before the start of cold war the cia used isi agents as inside players to funnel billions of dollars into islamist extremist groups in afghanistan for them to fight the soviets.
And?

Quote:
Mamod Ahmed the chief of isi was exposed by the wallstreet newspaper (the name daniel pearl ring the bell?) that he ordered the funneling of 100,000 dollars to the lead hijacker Atta just few days before 9/11. Why was this info not addressed in the commission report? Why has he not been questioned and put on trial but instead was forced to retire as chief of the isi by the president of pakistan? Are they afraid he may reveal too much?
You do realize that only one source, INDIAN intelligence, supports the money wiring claim? Ya think India might have a tiny stake in alienating Pakistan from the U.S.?

And how do you know he hasn't revealed anything? We want Pakistan, and we currently need Pakistan. How many trips has he made to DC since this money thing came out?

btw, his trips to DC served a real purpose, as opposed to the candy land version you like. He met with Porter Goss and Bob Graham to discuss Bin Laden. Why might those two have been intereste in learning about Bin Laden.

Having breakfast with the guy on 9/11 is embarrassing, but certainly doesn't lead to the conspiracy you've cooked up in your brain. Graham himself has publicly said that the role other governments had in 9/11 is startling, but those findings (like all things) will be archived for 20-30 years. However, if these findings demanded immediate action, they would've been acted upon.

All you have is one report, being circulated around and around and around by the same nutbags such as yourself. All of the conclusions that you have reached are based off of pure speculation, nothing more. What's sad is that you aren't even a unique conspiracy theorist. Everything you're saying is the regurgitation of the same old looney sites, like "cooperative research" and "911truth.org".
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Jul 16th, 2006, 10:26 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
All you have is one report, being circulated around and around and around by the same nutbags such as yourself. All of the conclusions that you have reached are based off of pure speculation, nothing more. What's sad is that you aren't even a unique conspiracy theorist. Everything you're saying is the regurgitation of the same old looney sites, like "cooperative research" and "911truth.org".
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #16  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 16th, 2006, 10:31 PM       
So a picture of President Bush I with the Saudi royal family proves that the ISI of Pakistan was behind 9/11, with our knowledge...?

I'm glad you've stopped even trying to argue. You should stick to posting pictures, maybe you can color me a picture of hezbollah freedom fighters shooting rockets at the Zionists.

Idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 06:33 AM       
Take a wild guess who the financers of 9/11 was that whistleblower graham was speaking of.

Would taliban exist without pakistan isi?

Would pakistan have much power as it does now if it wasn't for the CIA?

Just wondering what you think.
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #18  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 08:52 AM       
You're all over the place Geggy, try some ritalin.

I believe Graham's insinuation is in reference to Pakistan's role in it all, i.e. the ISI. This is why his name has come up over and over in reference to this overblown breakfast you've mentioned. (Graham wasn't being a "whistlblower" you dolt, if so, he would've outright said it)

The Saudi regime certainly has its problems, but I'm not so sure what it is you're trying to say. Osama is fake, so the CIA stopped hunting him, b/c the ISI knew about 9/11, b/c the CIA knew about 9/11 b/c the Saudis financed 9/11, so yeah. America did it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 09:42 AM       
You're the one who's stepping all over the place. I'm just here presenting some circumstane evidences and you're failing at making any connections at all and probably never will do so because you have too much faith in the us gubberment.

So you think the fact (which is classified btw) presented by whistleblower graham that the ISI was in it all, then how do you explain the cheif of ISI being in DC on the morning of 9/11? If it was true that the ISI was in it all then why no action has been taken? Do you think the relationship between the ISI and CIA ever had a falling out? Of course its the us gobberment's responsibility to answer these questions but i'd like to hear your ideas.
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #20  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 10:21 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
You're the one who's stepping all over the place. I'm just here presenting some circumstane evidences and you're failing at making any connections at all and probably never will do so because you have too much faith in the us gubberment.
Your circumstane evidences is far too circumstaneal for my liking.

The dots you're connecting aren't dots, they're mostly nonsense cooked up by paranoid freaks and government haters.

Quote:
So you think the fact (which is classified btw) presented by whistleblower graham that the ISI was in it all,
So which is it? Did "Whistleblower" Graham out the Saudis, or the ISI? This the third time now you've changed positions on this in this thread. Which is it?


Quote:
then how do you explain the cheif of ISI being in DC on the morning of 9/11?
I've already addressed this. You should calm down and read what people say before going into a frenzy of links and pics.

The ISI story is supported by only ONE intelligence outlet, and it's an actor with a vested interest in isolating pakistan. That doesn't mean it's entirely wrong, or that the ISI is good, it just means that pretty thoughtful people have already examined this "smoking gun" you're all up in arms about, and don't quite get the anxiety attacks over it that you seem to suffer from.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 12:15 PM       
"then how do you explain the cheif of ISI being in DC on the morning of 9/11?"

Why would the cheif of ISI need to be in DC for 911 to go off without a hitch? How does it even remotely imply involvement? Did he steer the plane with a remote control? If he was really involved wouldn't he be with his family or something busy trying to disassociate himself from the act as much as possible? All ye guilty parties gather to party? How convenient.
What type of financing does an operation like 911 cost? They flew a plane into a building. I doubt it costed them anymore than 100,000 dollars for that operation(probably no more than 10 grand) unless they had some extremely classy razors, an expensive bomb and flying instruction from harvard. Of course don't forget those terrorists need the expensive quilted toilet paper as well, that shit adds up.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #22  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 12:51 PM       
Dude, you don't you see why the head of one nation's intelligence agency being in the same city that our intelligence agency is HQ'd in is so suspicious?

Seriously, its not like countries work together or anything.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 01:52 PM       
Kev I never implied that ISI financed the hijackers, you did. Theyre merely players who had inside access to the islamic extremist hood. I'm curious why do you think pakistan was responsible for funding hijackers? I believe it as the saudis who financed the attacks, why is this even a surprise to you? You know that the saudis have been the biggest financers of terrorism around the world for a long time. Nobody knew for sure who financed the 9/11 hijackers except for those who are inside the govt agencies until graham blew the whistle. Doesn't that make graham a whistlebloer? Because he has confirmed that a foreign govt was indeedy involved ith financing the hijackers yet didn't say who because it's been classified due to senstive information. Afterall why is us govt so reluctant to release the info to the public?

"Coincidently" the PBS interview with graham where he blew the whistle took place after this report came out...

Possible Saudi 9-11 Money Trail Probed

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23, 2002
"The Bush administration should be pushing the Saudis more to be helpful to our country. I think they need us more than we need them"
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on a perceived lack of Saudi cooperation with congressional 9-11 probes

(CBS)Allegations that money from the Saudi royal family indirectly helped two Sept. 11 hijackers mean a well-financed terrorist structure still could be in place in America, capable of striking again, lawmakers said Sunday.

A link between the Saudi government and the hijackers, if true, "raises the stakes substantially of what the threat is in the United States," said Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, outgoing chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Such a network could "facilitate the next wave of terror."

[/b]The White House on Saturday defended the FBI's handling of a diplomatically sensitive investigation into reports that Saudi Arabia provided money that helped support two of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

In its defense of the FBI, the Bush administration also denied another contention of some lawmakers - that the bureau has not done enough to examine fully the financing of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi citizens.[/b]

Questions about the investigation could become troublesome for the administration, which is seeking the Saudis' help for a possible military campaign against their neighbor, Iraq. Saudi Arabia has been noncommittal, torn between its friendship with the United States and anti-war sentiment among the Arabs.

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, which are conducting a joint inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks, expressed misgivings about the FBI investigation. Lawmakers believe the bureau has not examined vigorously the possibility that the Saudi government might have given money to two men who provided financial help to hijackers Khalif al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.

A congressional aide, speaking to The Associated Press on Saturday on on condition of anonymity, said the issue is part of a broader concern that the FBI has done too little overall to determine how last year's attacks were paid for and by whom.

Dan Bartlett, an administration spokesman who accompanied President Bush to a NATO summit in Europe, said the FBI has been investigating the possible Saudi link, "and I'm not going to prejudge the conclusion of that investigation."

"As anyone who knows this issue will tell you, it's very difficult to track financing of terrorist networks, because most of it is done in cash," he said. "I don't agree with the assessment it's not been aggressively pursued."

"It's important not to rush to judgment," a White House official told CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller.

Sen. Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, would not discuss details of the financing investigation but said, "So much of the focus on Iraq has clearly taken a toll with respect to some of the vigilance and oversight that needs to apply to others in the region."

He also said he has been dissatisfied with Saudi cooperation in the congressional investigation.

"I do think the administration should be pushing the Saudis more to be helpful to our country. I think they need us more than we need them," said Wyden, D-Ore.

A draft report by a joint congressional committee looking into the terrorist attacks says the CIA and FBI ignored the possibility that two of the hijackers, al-Midhar and al-Hazmi, both Saudis, were given Saudi money from two Saudi men they met in California in the year before the attacks, The New York Times reported in its Saturday editions.

The two, who both lived in San Diego for a time, were on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

The committee also accused the Saudi government of not fully cooperating with American investigators.

The two hijackers met with Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan, who were receiving financial support from the Saudi government, the Times said. Officials were not sure what kind of stipends they were receiving, the newspaper said.

Newsweek said, however, the FBI uncovered financial records showing payments to the family of al-Bayoumi from a Washington bank account held in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States and daughter of the late King Faisal.

Sources said the payments amounted to about $3,500 a month. The money filtered into the al-Bayoumi family's bank account in early 2000, just a few months after al-Midhar and al-Hazmi arrived in Los Angeles from an al Qaeda planning summit, Newsweek said in a report posted on its Web site Friday night.

Payments for roughly the same amount began flowing every month to Basnan.

Administration officials told Newsweek they did do not know the purpose of the payments from Princess Haifa's account. They also were uncertain whether the money was given to the hijackers by al-Bayoumi or Basnan.

A spokesman for the Saudi embassy told CBS News on Saturday that the students received no money from Princess Haifa's account, that the allegation is "absolutely not true," and that the Princess is prepared to cooperate fully with the investigation, according to CBS News correspondent John Roberts.

Cont. here
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in530654.shtml
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #24  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 02:15 PM       
Reply With Quote
  #25  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Jul 17th, 2006, 02:28 PM       
Is that a Vermont Teddy Bear?
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:00 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.