You are herecontent / Newly Disclosed Documents Shed More Light on Early Taliban Offers, Pakistan Role

Newly Disclosed Documents Shed More Light on Early Taliban Offers, Pakistan Role


By Jeremy R. Hammond, Foreign Policy Journal, September 20, 2010

U.S. government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and recently posted on the website of the George Washington University National Security Archive shed some additional light on talks with the Taliban prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including with regard to the repeated Taliban offers to hand over Osama bin Laden, and the role of Pakistan before and after the attacks.[1]

Osama bin LadenOne of the recently released State Department documents, from March 2000, notes that a proposed "gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan figured prominently in discussions" about the mutual goal between the U.S. and regional players of stabilizing Afghanistan. Discussions on another proposed pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan had also been proposed that were "more advanced", and the Pakistanis had gone to Tehran to meet with Iranian officials "to pursue these negotiations". But neither "pipeline is likely to go forward in the mid-term", the documented concluded.

A Pakistani official told the U.S. that "Pakistan 'will always support the Taliban’". This "policy cannot change, he continued; it would prompt rebellion across the Northwest Frontier Provinces, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and indeed on both sides of the Pashtun-dominated Pak-Afghan border." But the Taliban were "'looking for a way out’ of the problem with bin Laden". The U.S. was urged to "find a way to compromise with the Taliban", and possible "ways that the U.S. and the Taliban might use to break the impasse" were suggested, including "the possibility of a trial in a third (Muslim) country", "U.S. assurances that bin Laden would not face the death penalty", and "a U.S. outline of what the Taliban would gain from extradition of bin Laden".[2]

It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The talks continued "until just days before" the attacks, according to a Washington Post report the month following the attacks. But a compromise solution such as the above that would offer the Taliban a face-saving way out of the impasse was never seriously considered. Instead, "State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system."

Officials described the U.S. decision to reject Taliban offers as a missed opportunity. Former CIA station chief Milt Bearden told the Post, "We never heard what they were trying to say…. We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.’" Bearden added, "I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck," but this "never clicked" with U.S. officials.

Michael Malinowski, a State Department official involved in the talks, acknowledged, "I would say, 'Hey, give up bin Laden,’ and they would say, 'No…. Show us the evidence’", a request U.S. officials deemed unreasonable.[3]

According to the BBC, the Taliban later even warned the U.S. that bin Laden was going to launch an attack on American soil. Former Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil said his warnings, issued because of concerns that the U.S. would react by waging war against Afghanistan, had been ignored. A U.S. official did not deny that such warnings were issued, but told BBC rather that it was dismissed because "We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff".[4]

Indeed, underscoring Muttawakil’s stated reasons for having delivered the threat warning to the U.S., a State Department document from June 2001 obtained by INTELWIRE.com[5] showed that the U.S. had warned the Taliban "that they will be held directly responsible for any loss of life that occurs from terrorist actions related to terrorists who have trained in Afghanistan or use Afghanistan as a base of planning operations."[6] The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef responded that "the Taliban do not see Americans as their enemies and that there are no threats to Americans coming from the Taliban. Nontheless, said Zaeef, 'We will do our best to follow up and stop’ any threat." With regard to bin Laden, "Zaeef emphasized that the Taliban’s relationship with UBL [Usama/Osama bin Laden] and others is based not on enmity against the United States, but on 'culture.’"[7]

Rejecting the Taliban offers to have bin Laden handed over, the U.S. instead pursued a policy of regime change well prior to the 9/11 attacks. Jane’s Information Group reported in March 2001 that "India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime", which included support for Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, including "information and logistic support" from Washington.[8] Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik told the BBC that he had been told by senior U.S. officials in July 2001 at a U.N.-sponsored summit in Berlin that military action would be taken against the Taliban by the middle of October. Preparations had already been coordinated with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Russia. Naik also "said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban."[9]

A newly released document dated August 30, 2001 shows that Pakistan was continuing to urge the U.S. "to maintain open channels to the Taliban." Pakistani officials denied that their support for the Taliban included military assistance. When asked "why Pakistan supports the Taliban", an official replied, "We don’t support but inter-act with the Taliban". Pressed further on why Pakistan continued "to give the Taliban international diplomatic support and to press the USG [United States Government] to engage with the Taliban?" the Pakistanis "reiterated that the Taliban are the effective rulers of at least 90 percent of Afghanistan, that they enjoy significant popular support because they ended the banditry and anarchy that once bedeviled the country, and that the instant success of the opium poppy production ban underscored … the reality and effectiveness of Taliban authority." If it wasn’t for "external support" for the Northern Alliance, it "would collapse in a matter of days."[10]

Another newly disclosed document shows that two days after the 9/11 attacks Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was told "bluntly" that "There was no inclination in Washington to engage in a dialog with the Taliban." The U.S. was already prepared for military action and "believed strongly that the Taliban are harboring the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks." The U.S. was "fairly sure" that bin Laden "and his Al Qida network of terrorists" were guilty.[11]

The following day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage issued an ultimatum to Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed that Pakistan’s cooperation was expected "should the evidence strongly implicate Usama bin-Laden and the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbor him and this network".[12]

Mahmud conveyed the message to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and reported back to Armitage that "the 'response was not negative on all these points’." The Taliban was to convene a grand council to discuss the U.S.’s terms. Mahmud said he had "framed the decision to Mullah Omar and the other Afghans as essentially choosing between one man and his safe haven versus the well-being of 25 million citizens of Afghanistan" and that they were "now engaged in 'deep introspection’ about their decisions."[13]

The BBC reported on the Pakistani talks with the Taliban, noting that the Taliban were "demanding proof of his involvement in the terror attacks on the US" before they would consider handing over Osama bin Laden, who issued a statement saying, "The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this".[14] CNN similarly reported that the Taliban was "refusing to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved" in the 9/11 attacks. Ambassador Abdul Salam Zaeef said "that deporting him without proof would amount to an 'insult to Islam.’" But, he added, "We are ready to cooperate if we are shown evidence." U.S. officials said evidence gathered linking bin Laden to other terrorist attacks were all the proof that was needed, but declined to provide evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.[15]

A document from September 23 notes that Mahmud planned to meet with the Taliban a second time, and that he emphasized to the U.S. that "A negotiated solution would be preferable to military action", but was told that "his trip could not delay military planning" and that "The time for negotiation was past." In his further meeting, Mahmud would ask Omar to "surrender Usama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants", and reiterated Pakistan’s pledge of support for the U.S. effort, but replied by saying, "I implore you not to act in anger. Real victory will come in negotiations…. Reasoning with them to get rid of terrorism will be better than the use of brute force. If the strategic objective is Al Quaida [sic] and UBL, it is better for the Afghans to do it. We could avoid the fallout." Overthrowing the Taliban regime would "leave a dangerous political vacuum" and Afghanistan would "revert to warlordism", Mahmud warned. He further cautioned that "a strike will produce thousands of frustrated young Muslim men. It will be an incubator of anger that will explode two or three years from now."[16] The U.S. dismissed these concerns, which were subsequently proven to have been prescient.

Secretary of State Colin Powell at the same time told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, "I am absolutely convinced that the al Qaeda network, which he heads, was responsible for this attack." When asked whether the government would "release publicly a white paper which links him and his organization to this attack", Powell replied, "We are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think in the near future we will be able to put out a paper, a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack."[17] The promised white paper was never delivered.

The U.S. war against Afghanistan commenced on October 7, and the Taliban again repeated offers to negotiate handing over bin Laden. Taliban deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir announced that "If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the U.S. stopped its bombing, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". President George W. Bush rejected the offer as "non-negotiable", adding, "There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty."[18] Refusing to provide evidence of bin Laden’s guilt, Bush reiterated the U.S. ultimatum: "If they want us to stop our military operations, they’ve just got to meet my conditions. When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations."[19]

The Taliban then dropped their demand for evidence and repeated their offer to turn bin Laden over to a third country. The London Guardian reported that Taliban minister Muttawakil met with officials from the CIA and ISI to propose the offer, which was once again dismissed by U.S. officials.[20] Taliban spokesman Amir Khan Muttaqi said at the end of October, "We do not want to fight…. We will negotiate. But talk to us like a sovereign country. We are not a province of the United States, to be issued orders to. We have asked for proof of Osama’s involvement, but they have refused. Why?" State Department spokesman Richard Boucher responded by falsely claiming, "All one has to do is watch television to find Osama bin Laden claiming responsibility for the September 11 bombings."[21]

In fact, as already noted, bin Laden had in denied any involvement in the attacks. On September 16, bin Laden issued a statement saying: "Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it…. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it…." He added that the Taliban had forbidden terrorist attacks from being "carried out from Afghanistan’s territory", and that this message had been delivered to him personally from Taliban leader Mullah Omar.[22]

Again on September 28, in an interview with the Karachi daily Ummat, bin Laden denied involvement: "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people…. Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

He went on to suggest that the attacks were an inside job: "Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened…. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks."[23]

Bin Laden was correct in his observation that U.S. policymakers perceived the need for an external enemy in order to pursue their policy goals. Without such a threat, the goal of many after the end of the Cold War not only to maintain U.S. military expenditures, but to effect a "transformation" of the military into a force for U.S. global hegemony, could not be realized. The neoconservative think tank The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), acknowledged this in its September 2000 manifesto "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century", which argued the case for maintaining U.S. preeminence and global hegemony, and to "extend the current Pax Americana" through a buildup of the military. But this "process of transformation" was "likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."[24]

This assessment echoed that of Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities on March 5, 1999. After stating that "There appears to be a general agreement concerning the need to transform the U.S. military into a significantly different kind of force from that which emerged victorious from the Cold and Gulf Wars," he noted that "this verbal support has not been translated into a defense program supporting transformation." He stated further that "While there is growing support in Congress for transformation the 'critical mass’ needed to affect it has not yet been achieved." In conclusion, he said, "in the absence of a strong external shock to the United States—a latter-day 'Pearl Harbor’ of sorts—surmounting the barriers to transformation will likely prove a long, arduous process."[25]

While the U.S. never produced the white paper it promised that was to present the evidence against bin Laden in making its case for war, the British government did present a paper Tony Blair insisted demonstrated his guilt. Yet "Downing Street acknowledged that the 21-page dossier did not amount to a prosecutable case against bin Laden in a court of law." Harder evidence, the document claimed, was "too sensitive to release."[26]

To this day, the attacks of 9/11 are not listed as being among the crimes for which Osama bin Laden is wanted by the FBI, because there is not enough evidence against him to bring an indictment against him in a court of law.[27]

The threshold of evidence required for waging a war is apparently much lower than that to issue an indictment in a court of law. As a direct consequence of the war, Afghanistan once again became far and away the world’s leading producer of opium and heroin; it indeed returned to a state of warlordism, chaos, and violence, just as the U.S. had been warned; many more Afghan civilians have been killed than Americans who died on 9/11, and Osama bin Laden was never captured.

Notes

[1] "'No-Go’ Tribal Areas Became Basis for Afghan Insurgency Documents Show", George Washington University National Security Archive, September 13, 2010 .

[2] "Turkmenistan and Pakistan Predict War, Even While 'Working for Peace,’ in Afghanistan, and Continue to Support Taliban", U.S. State Department, March 13, 2000 .

[3] David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens, "Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden", Washington Post, October 29, 2001; Page A01 .

[4] Kate Clark, "Taleban 'warned US of huge attack’", BBC News, September 7, 2002 .

[5] J.M. Berger, "U.S. Had 'High Confidence’ Of UBL Attack in June 2001″, INTELWIRE.com, November 7, 2008 .

[6] "Terrorism: Demarche on Threat by Afghan-Based Terrorists", U.S. State Department, June 27, 2001 .

[7] "Terrorism: Demarche on Threat by Afghan-Based Terrorists", U.S. State Department, June 29, 2001 .

[8] Rahul Bedi, "India joins anti-Taliban coalition", Jane’s Information Group, March 15, 2001.

[9] George Arney, "US 'planned attack on Taleban’", BBC News, September 18, 2001 .

[10] "STAFFDEL focuses on Afghanistan at MFA", U.S. State Department, August 30, 2001 .

[11] "Musharraf [EXCISED]", U.S. State Department, September 13, 2001

[12] "Deputy Secretary Armitage’s Meeting with General Mahmud: Actions and Support Expected of Pakistan in Fight Against Terrorism", U.S. State Department, September 13, 2001

[13] "Deputy Secretary Armitage-Mahmoud Phone Call", U.S. State Department, September 18, 2001 .

[14] "Taleban to decide Bin Laden fate", BBC News, September 17, 2001 . See also Rupert Cornwell and Andrew Grice, "Taliban are given an ultimatum: hand over bin Laden or face attack", The Independent, September 17, 2001 .

[15] "White House warns Taliban: 'We will defeat you’", CNN, September 21, 2001 . See also Luke Harding and Rory McCarthy, "Bush rejects Bin Laden deal", The Guardian, September 21, 2001 .

[16] "Mahmud Plans 2nd Mission to Afghanistan", U.S. State Department, September 24, 2001 .

[17] Transcript of NBC’s 'Meet the Press’ With Tim Russert, September 23, 2001 .

[18] "Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over", The Guardian, October 14, 2001 . See also Andrew Buncombe, "Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden", The Independent, October 15, 2001 .

[19] Larry D. Hatfield, "Intense daylight bombing raids / Bush rejects new Taliban offer to send bin Laden to 3rd country", San Francisco Chronicle, October 15, 2001 .

[20] Rory McCarthy, "New offer on Bin Laden", The Guardian, October 17, 2001 .

[21] Kathy Gannon, "Official: Taliban Willing to Talk", Associated Press, November 1, 2001.

[22] "Afghanistan: Bin Laden Denies Involvement in Terrorist Attacks in US", Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press News Agency, September 16, 2001; from "Compilation of Usama Bin Laden Statements, 1994 – January 2004″, Foreign Broadcast Information Service, January 2004 . See also "Bin Laden says he wasn’t behind attacks", CNN, September 17, 2001 .

[23] "'Exclusive’ Interview With Usama Bin Ladin on 11 Sep Attacks in US", Ummat, September 28, 2001; from the FBIS compliation.

[24] "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century", Project for a New American Century, September 2000 .

[25] Testimony of Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director, before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Marcy 5, 1999 .

[26] George Jones, "Blair presents the 'proof’ that bin Laden is guilty", The Telegraph, October 5, 2001

[27] "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive: Usama Bin Laden", Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed September 20, 2001 . "No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″, ProjectCensored.org, accessed September 20, 2001 .

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst whose articles have been featured in numerous print and online publications around the world. He is the founder and editor of Foreign Policy Journal (www.foreignpolicyjournal.com), an online source for news, critical analysis, and opinion commentary on U.S. foreign policy. He was a recipient of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. Read more articles by Jeremy R. Hammond.
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hey kidz!!! Ever compare where Osama bin Laden was on 9-11 . . .

. . . with where Ehud Barack, the head of the Israeli MOSSAD, and Ehud Olmert, former Israeli Prime Minister, were on 9-11???

(clipped headline and article from CBS Evening News website from Jan. 28, 2002)
"Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama - Accused Terrorist Said To Have Had Dialysis On Sept. 10 - CBS Evening News has been told that the night before the Sept. 11 terrorists attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan."

(full story)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

(clipped headline and link)
"9/11 ANALYSIS: Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001"
http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-analysis-where-was-osama-bi...

Now, what about hardcore Zionist TERRORISTS Ehud Barack and Ehud Olmert???

(clipped headlin and article from Christopher Bollyn)
"How Ehud Barak Pulled Off 9-11 - Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister, has been in the United States for a week of meetings and speeches. He is, in my opinion, the key suspect of being the mastermind of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11. I am providing this brief article to explain how I think he did it."

(full story)
http://www.bollyn.com/home#article_12131

Now, isn't it interesting that Ehud Barak apparently is big buds with Israeli Minister of Pensioner Affairs Rafi Eitan. You kidz remember good ol' Rafi Eitan from his role as the spymaster "handler" of TRAITOR Jonathon "Nuclear Secrets For Sale" Pollard . . . and if this ol' fool's memory serves, he is STILL wanted by the FBI for his role in the Jonathon Pollard HIGH TREASON.

And of all the cowinky-dinks . . . Israel announces that it will FREEZE the genocide of the Palestinians for a whole THREE MONTHS if WE THE PEOPLE hand over Zionist HERO Jonathon Pollard . . .

(clipped headline and article from Haaretz)
"U.S. won't comment on reports of Pollard release deal - The United States refused to comment Tuesday on a report that Israel might seek the release of a convicted spy in return for extending a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank."

(full story)
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-won-t-comment-on-repor...

. .. and come to find out, our "Special Friends" have gotten caught trying to SELL ILLEGAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS to South Africa!!! What a cowinky dink, indeed . . . ;-)

(clipped headline and article from The UK Guardian 24 May 2010 )
"Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons - Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons. Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons."

(full story)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-...

No wonder the self proclaimed "Master Race" has stated that signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty is "not in Israel's interests" . . . too much money to be made selling illegal weapons, I guess . .. as if the white sex slavery, adult and child porn industory, Ecstasy and Heroin trafficking, and organ harvesting weren't profitable enough . .. ;-)

(clipped headline and article from RAWSTORY)
"Israel again refuses to join nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - It is against Israel's interests to join a global anti-nuclear arms treaty and the UN atomic watchdog is overstepping its mandate in demanding it to do so, its nuclear chief said on Tuesday"

(full story)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/israel-refuses-join-nuclear-nonprolif...

Oh, well, what do you expect from a bunch of PIRATES??? . . . ;-)

(clipped headline and link)
"Israeli raid on Gaza aid flotilla broke law - UN probe"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11393836

But, I'm just an old fool from North Cackilacki . . . what do I know? . . . ;-)

"IT IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN that 9-11 was a Mossad operation - period."
- Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College

Who had the MOTIVE?

Who had the MEANS?

Who had the OPPORTUNITY?

Cui bono? Who benefits?

Here is the SHORT answer . . .

(link to video - approx. 3 minutes)
"Mr President the Whole World knows 9-11 was a Lie"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xYyOzxl-yw&feature=fvst

. . . and for you kidz that have a couple of hours to LEVEL UP big time . . .

(link to Ryan Dawson's 10 part video series - approx. 3 hours)
"War by Deception (Iraq, 911, PNAC, Anthrax, what the media won't report.)"
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15034&p=10446...

I especially like the way brother Ryan Dawson covers the time line of the Anthrax attacks.

But of course, my friends at the local media that refuse to interview me about the NSA illegal wire tapping and the local "PEACE" groups that won't allow me to speak at their "PEACE" events here in the mountains of North Cackilacki . . . tell me I'm just an ol' "Conspiracy Theorist" . . ;-)

Maybe someday some "newly disclosed documents" will shed a little light in their lives . . .
. . . but like the man said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see?" . . . ;-)

"I've seen your face before my friend,
But I don't know if you know who I am
Well I was there and I saw what you did,
I saw it with my own two eyes
So you can wipe off that grin,
I know where you've been
It's all been a pack of lies"
- "In The Air Tonight" by Phil Collins

peace.

Re. Chris Bollyn:

He's a reporter to be wary of, because he gets some things considerably "screwed up", and some things totally "screwed up"; while apparently also doing some good work. For some good examples of some of his nonsense, do a Google for articles at 911review.com using his last name for search term. You can simply copy and paste "Bollyn site:911review.com" (minus the quotes) in the Google search term box. And some of the links returned with the search might be for articles that say nothing about his nonsense, but there are enough that do at 911review.com, which is one of Jim Hoffman's websites.

With respect to Zionism, however, 911review.com has a very relevant article.

"Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth"

http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html

The greater part about Chris Bollyn is a few paragraphs down the page, but it's of value to read from the beginning. The page is much about him and his associations when we keep in mind that he wrote for the American Free Press (AmFP), which clearly is rather neo-Nazi or supporter of it, very considerably. While AmFP apparently does not explictly promote this ideology, "its sister publication, The Barnes Review overtly" does, and both publications promote each other.

While Jim Hoffman says at the start of another 911review.com article that Chris Bollyn did report a few important things about the 9/11 attacks early on, the article also says that he reported bogus things about the attacks; very bogus. And Jim Hoffman evidently does always back up what he says with concrete examples when what he writes about is what other people have reported or said. He also does that for other writings of his about 9/11.

Re. Israel selling nukes to So. Africa:

Sorry, but that has nothing at all to do with 9/11! Anyone who claims the contrary is not a credible thinker, because the person clearly is not a critically objective or objectively critical individual. It's nonsense, instead.

Trying to get readers to nonsensically believe that Israel was responsible for 9/11 because Israel tried to or did sell nuclear arms technology to any country is an approach of very uninformed and biased thinking. It's highly non-critical or non-critically objective thought. And it's not the same as, but nevertheless is nearly as bad as the "no-plane" or "no plane" so-called theory about 9/11; nonsense. Jim Hoffman has a critique about that and other bogus 9/11 so-called theories from the nonsense crowd; and Chris Bollyn supported or promoted this bogus 9/11 "theory", Jim Hoffman explains.

A requirement for serious truth:

To be really for [truth], people must be critically objective in their thinking and, therefore, analyses. Otherwise, we will tend to often stray away from or never even get near serious [truth].

Closing:

There's too or much too much [blind] anti-Zionism. While Zionism is indeed and clearly evil, many Americans are blind in their anti-Zionism. And such blindness makes a person prone to denying critically important truths, as well as prone to hypocrisy(ies).

[No] "9/11 truthers" who are truly [serious] about this tote the "Zionists committed 9/11!" line. NONE! We can recognize that some Zionists, maybe many, most or even all elite or top-elite Zionists profited from 9/11 when it happened or very shortly thereafter, and that they've profited from the attacks since then; but what's unusual about that? Many other wicked people also profited!

To be a real "9/11 truther" really means to only seek the truth about the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't require believing any of the related "theories" or analyses. We only need to understand that the "official story" is very bogus and that many critically important questions remain officially unanswered, which is a reality that there is no and can be [no] valid defense, excuse or reason for. Many, if not most, of us believe that the government either wittingly allowed the attacks to happen, or had a lot more to do with the attacks than only allowing them and then profiting from them. But all a real "9/11 truther" essentially needs to be one is to understand that official truth hasn't been anywhere near adequately provided and that a real and truly independent investigation is justified, or else required.

We'll all support the call for such an investigation, but not all of us necessarily believe that this will ever happen; probably, most of us don't believe it ever will. But that doesn't prevent us from supporting the call for such an investigation and the arguments for it being definitely justified.

But [no] serious truth-seeking individual regarding 9/11 holds Israel or Zionism as responsible for the 9/11 attacks even if there were some Zionists or pro-Zionists in the then White House administration. It takes a lot more than only a White House administration for the U.S. to commit war. And that's true about military war, economic war, propaganda war, war on the environment, and possibly other kinds of "war". Besides, the White House administration is made to obey the top ruling elites when the administration veers off course, say.

And neither of the wars, on Iraq or Afghanistan, was or is for Israel. Israeli elites profit from these wars, and covert, through-proxy wars the U.S. orchestrates, leads in some African countries, f.e. But what's unusual about that? Israeli elites are a tiny minority of the many elites who profit from these and other extreme crimes against humanity.

Richard, Dick Cheney was much more influential in the appointed (not elected) Bush Jr administration than any other members of the administration were and his goal had to do with the oil industry, not Israel.

The so-called theory that Zionists and Israel were responsible for 9/11 is false. Some may've been involved, but certainly not only them, and not only for them. The war on Afghanistan started a year and a half before the one on Iraq and there's no real connection between Israel and Afghanistan. But the war on Iraq was not launched for the sake of Zionist Israel, either.

Such wars are extremely dirty. We mustn't expect to find a simplistic answer like, "The Zionists did it!". Dirty wars involve dirty strategies or stratagems. Simplism isn't going to provide real insight or understanding.

I thought this post would raise our resident "Megaphonie" to arms . . . ;-)

Mr. Mike "Megaphonie" Corbeil, an expatriate "American" living in Canada, who loves to spend LOTS of time . . . almost like it's his FULL TIME JOB . . . lecturing WE THE PEOPLE on how hopeless our Great Constitutional Republic is . .

. . . and how Israel is ALWAYS the victim . . .

. . . but we shouldn't even being LOOKING at Israel . . .

. . . we should always be looking OVER THERE somewhere else . . . the great nebulous corporations . . . ;-)

Mr. Mike "Megaphonie" Corbeil, with all due respect . . . well, actually I have ZERO respect for you . . . I liked your 5th Columnist predecessor MOSSAD MATTY from Florida better . . . at least HE had the civility to actually respond to my questions when I attempted to have a discussion with him . . .

. . . then he'd always get mad, call me an Anti-Semite, and then it usually degraded into something about his penis, . . . which he was apparently quite proud of.

I hope you got paid time and a half for all these replies . . . ;-)

. . . but despite all your kvetching . . . the facts remain . . .

Israel's MOSSAD is suspect #1 in the 9-11 Attacks with the agenda of furthering the Zionist "Racial Supremacy" policies in the Middle East. . . The Grand Chessboard. . .

Oh, and for you kidz just tuning in . . .

"Megaphone desktop tool - The Megaphone desktop tool is a Windows "action alert" tool developed by Give Israel Your United Support (GIYUS) and distributed by World Union of Jewish Students, World Jewish Congress, The Jewish Agency for Israel, World Zionist Organization, StandWithUs, Hasbara fellowships, HonestReporting, and other pro-Israel public relations organizations. The tool was released in July during the 2006 Lebanon War. An RSS newsfeed is available so that non-Windows users may also receive the Megaphone "action alerts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool

Hence why Zionist shills, many of them paid staffers, that flood the blogosphere with Zionist B.S. . . . like our own Mike Corbeil and MOSSAD MATTY from Flordia . . . are referred to as
"MEGAPHONIES" . . . ;-)

No one can serve two masters, kidz . . . whom do you think Mr. Mike Corbeil serves? I certainly don't think he has this Great Republic in his heart . . . ;-)

"There's your trouble
There's your trouble
You're seeing double with the wrong one
You can see I love you
You can see she doesn't
But you just keep holding on
There's your trouble"
- "There's Your Trouble" by The Dixie Chicks

peace.

Another newly disclosed document shows that two days after the 9/11 attacks Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was told "bluntly" that "There was no inclination in Washington to engage in a dialog with the Taliban." The U.S. was already prepared for military action and "believed strongly that the Taliban are harboring the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks." The U.S. was "fairly sure" that bin Laden "and his Al Qida network of terrorists" were guilty.[11]

"believed strongly" and was "fairly sure" don't mean the same thing. Being "fairly sure" is [weak] compared to strong belief. And the U.S. leadership was full of bs either way.

They evidently had no evidence against Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, because he remains officially uncharged in the U.S. for those attacks (see the FBI's website, f.e.); or, they had evidence against him, but haven't wanted to hold it against him. The latter, if it's what happened and is continued, might be explained based on the fact that the rich Saudi bin Ladens are special "friends" of the Bush family and possibly other elites in the U.S.

But we know for a fact that seven of the alleged 9/11 hijackers weren't on the planes used for attacks on that day, because they were discovered to be alive well after 9/11 and no one could have possibly survived if they were on those planes when they were used for the attacks. The FBI knows this, but still lists these seven people, with their photographs, et cetera, as among the 9/11 hijackers!

And we do [not] have actual proof about the other 12 alleged hijackers; that is, proof that they were on those planes when they were used for the attacks.

But the Taliban said that they'd hand over OBL if the leadership of the U.S. provided sufficient preliminary evidence of him being guilty for 9/11, a totally legitimate condition that we all have the right to for defense against bs allegations against us. If Bush et alia had had sufficient evidence, persuasive enough, then OBL would've been handed over if this evidence was provided to the Taliban and, I expect, the UN; but Bush et alia refused. Instead, they ruled as if the U.S. rules this world, which is something absolutely no country has the right to do or to even try to do.

The criminals were in Washington and they have their continuer there today; as usual.

All we have is bla bla bla bs words from Washington, as [usual]. There's a lot of "usual" with Washington and it's seldomly good.

But we can "thank" them for one thing and it's that they make it clear that they're war criminals and that they criminally plan on [dominating] over really all of humanity; except for themselves, of course.

The following day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage issued an ultimatum to Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed that Pakistan’s cooperation was expected "should the evidence strongly implicate Usama bin-Laden and the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbor him and this network".[12]

If OBL/UBL was to be handed over, then it should not have been to the U.S., anyway. It then should have been to the UN or ICC, and there's a problem with doing that, as well. The UN is dominated by the UNSC, which, in turn, is dominated by western imperialists, et cetera; and the same is true of the ICC.

OBL/UBL would have deserved a fair trial just like everyone else would or does, and the U.S. can [not] be counted on for providing this. Basically (or worse), the U.S. used the ICC to murder former President Slobodan Milosevic, and the international tribunal about the actually non-genocide in Rwanda in 1994 was very bogus; and the fact that it was very corrupt clearly was deliberate, because it clearly was wittingly done. A problem probably many people have with that fact is not having read from [reliable] sources about it; but that's easy to remedy. And the same holds true about the ICC evidently having been used as a soft political method of killing President Milosevic.

All it requires is reading from the reliable sources. And www.GlobalResearch.ca is certainly among websites with the needed articles.

If people are too lazy and/or biased to refer to what [reliable] sources say, then they don't have an argument or any excuses. And admitting to being too lazy and/or biased also wouldn't constitute a valid excuse.

Re. what I said about Rwanda:

There are some very important and revealing articles about the tribunal at GlobalResearch.ca, but regarding the fact that what happened there really was not genocide is something that Keith Harmon snow, who has his own website, www.allthingspass, and articles at Global Research and other websites, as well as some videos at Youtube and possibly other video websites, has excellently written about this non-genocide; clearly explaining why it was not genocide.

Who stood to gain from that lie in U.S. propaganda of deception? Western, certainly U.S., elites! That's who. And they claimed there was genocide happening in Sudan, while no other governments did; because U.S. elites stood to gain, i.e., PROFIT.

The BBC reported on the Pakistani talks with the Taliban, noting that the Taliban were "demanding proof of his involvement in the terror attacks on the US" before they would consider handing over Osama bin Laden, who issued a statement saying, "The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this".[14] CNN similarly reported that the Taliban was "refusing to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved" in the 9/11 attacks. (snip) U.S. officials said evidence gathered linking bin Laden to other terrorist attacks were all the proof that was needed, but declined to provide evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.[15]

That was not sufficient proof that he was guilty for the 9/11 attacks, so the U.S. evidently had no proof against him for those attacks. But since that's clearly true, I am left to wonder what proof the U.S. leadership really had against him for other attacks they alleged that he was guilty for committing or leading on the U.S. in, f.e., two African countries during the Clinton administration.

What proof were we ever provided for U.S. leadership allegations against him? None, as far as I'm aware. All I am aware of are words of the order of, "Washington says ...", "An anonymous White House official said ...", "An anonymous CIA official said ..."; lots of bla bla bla Washington "said" stuff, but no actual proof provided to us so that we could consider it for ourselves; like jurists get to do when they are used for trials by jury.

Trials about serious crimes that are not by jury either often can't, or else never (so far anyway) can, be trusted.

OBL/UBL clearly refuted the allegation against him for 9/11 and some counter-terrorism experts, either all formerly of this line of work, or some were while others were still actively doing this kind of work, spoke about this. They said that it'd be extremely unusual that a terrorist would not claim responsibility. And that does make sense, for the people our governments call terrorists are, when they really are terrorists anyway, people who act based on demands for justice and they need to bring attention to their cause, or else they'll get nowhere and will just commit acts of violence without any real strategy for trying to win. That would be only revenge, instead of acts of terrorism a real purpose of trying to get injustices justly resolved, which is what real terrorists, as we're supposed to know of them, do.

Of course our governments are the worst terrorists of all, terrorizing this whole world, but they're not doing it to get injustices corrected. They're the greatest committers of injustices; supreme injustices. It's not terrorism as we're supposed to only think of it.

Secretary of State Colin Powell at the same time told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, "I am absolutely convinced that the al Qaeda network, which he heads, was responsible for this attack." When asked whether the government would "release publicly a white paper which links him and his organization to this attack", Powell replied, "We are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think in the near future we will be able to put out a paper, a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack."[17] The promised white paper was never delivered.

And we should think of that in terms of when Powell presented what he called proof of Iraq manufacturing WMD when he spoke before the UNGA in Feb. 2003; when he tried to get us to believe that the mere exterior shell and surrounding bare desert sands were proof that the trailer he provided a satellite picture of was a lab for making WMD. It was not proof of anything more of there being a trailer in the middle of some desert; showing nothing about what was inside, while there was nothing outside of it and in the picture that revealed anything about any kinds of weapons at all. He wanted us to believe the contrary of what our eyes could easily and clearly see for themselves, and he of course knew that he was taking part in a supreme international crime in doing this. He's dumb for playing along with Washington, but he's not stupid enough to have not known what he was doing.

And he was a war criminal from before 9/11 and the appointed Bush Jr administration.

He has sometimes initially stated good positions in contrast to the war-chicken-hawks of Washington, but he has always folded, to follow their dictats. Only criminals and ignorant people behave in that manner, and he wasn't ignorant enough for ignorance to be an acceptable or tolerable excuse for him.

He's a war criminal and if ever Bush Jr and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, were put on trial for their war crimes, it would be fitting to also add Powell as well as Rice, and others.

He went on to suggest that the attacks were an inside job: "Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened…. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks."[23]

I think PBS did a documentary entitled, "The Secret Government", or a very similar title and while I haven't viewed it, links for it have turned up in some of my Web searches on, f.e., "Secrets of the CIA".

And I forget if the article stated the person's name, but I read one several years ago about a man who was a White House official in, I believe, 1994 and that he had expressed serious concern about what he called the "hidden hand" operating in and controlling the government of the U.S. It's the same thing as the "secret government" within the externally or publicly visible or apparent government.

The "secret government", the people forming the "hidden hand" that forms the "secret government" within the apparent government, has existed for many decades, perhaps to varying degrees, but long present. The or some of the people who were formerly part of this team or organization, say, may have changed, or some who were in this in the past have died or "moved on" for other reasons, but there are some who have been in this for many decades and David Rockefeller is certainly one of those names that we'll often read about. He's very, very notorious, for or to anyone who's learned about some of his real and dark doings with what's Constitutionally supposed to be The People's government.

Also related is the Trilateral Commission and some other dark entity or organization, which we either rarely or else never read or hear about in corporate media, and which extremely few "alternative" media care to mention. The CFR is another one and some people evidently have the false impression that the CFR is not really a dark affair because some of the members the public is presented aren't all that scary; but those are people used to give the public a misleading understanding of what the CFR really is.

The latter is very similar to the CIA having plenty of honest members, while the real leaders in the CIA are people of wickedness, darkness, [evil]. To mislead the public, we're not told about the dark reality the CIA is most importantly or critically about. Instead, we mostly read about good analysts, and the analysts, from what I read some months ago, now constitute maybe 10% of CIA personnel. But plenty of members of the operations branch or wing of the CIA are honest and credibly not informed about the really dark purposes the CIA is most critically used for.

Evil tries to mask itself so that it can operate "freely"; although, in the U.S., it's usually at taxpayer expense. And it's definitely at the expense of all of us; our rights, Constitution, and so on. But that's nothing Evil cares about, as long as it isn't made to pay for its deeds or acts and, therefore, isn't held accountable.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.