• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Mosque near Ground Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
When I say thinking defensivley, I mean, I'm thinking what would be best to defend the Country. You never know when the next huge threat could take place.
AAAAAAAnd you're doing it again. You are connecting radical muslim terrorism with muslim-americans. This is like connecting the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church with semi-agnostic christian moderates. What you're saying is essentially, "There's a large chance that this mosque will be turned into a center for terrorists", which has been shown to be flat-out untrue. Just look at the average muslim-american. They are not terrorists, they are normal, law-abiding citizens who believe in a slightly different religious doctrine. Why don't I say "There's a large chance that this church will be turned into a center for witch-hunting, the persecution of people who aren't christian, and crusades" whenever a new church is built in europe?
 

professor mgw

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
2,573
Location
Bronx, NY
NNID
Prof3ssorMGW
I'm very sorry to hear that about your family..........
Likewise :/.

This is a matter where even when your right (the muslims) it doesn't matter becuase of how others feel. Obviously building a mosque so close to ground zero is not a good idea just because they have the right to because they already know what to expect from the americans. People were affected by lots of death... It doesn't matter if the americans are "stupid" or "ignorant" because those feelings will NOT change unfortunately, am I backing them up on that? No, it isn't fair to judge them the same way they would extremists, but because of some similarites between the two that's what's going to happen.
 

HaiWayne

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
70
Location
Santa Barbara
I do believe that it is in bad taste to build a Muslim religious center near ground zero, but that is certainly not enough of a justification for the government to intervene and stop the construction. Such an action by the government should only occur if there is a compelling reason. If the government can allow or reject constructions of religious buildings based on trivial reasons such as "it might offend 911 victims", it would lead to a slippery slope of erosion of religious freedom.

Despite this, there needs to be a discussion regarding the danger of Islam. Non Muslims as well as moderate Muslims should all acknowledge that there are dangerous passages in the Muslim scripture that advocates for violent jihad-ism. Statements like, Islam is a peaceful religion, is simply ignoring the real problem with terrorism.
 

BOB SAGET!

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
1,125
Location
CANADA
You don't think there are dangerous passages in the bible too?

Many passages in the old testament show God hating everybody the Israelites hate. It describes him killing every first born male in Egypt on the night of the passover. The bible also defines women as being property of men: 10 Commandments- "not covet our neighbor's house, his wife, his slaves, his ox, his ***, etc." The neighbor is clearly a male, and the things that we are forbidden to covet are all male possessions.

The New Testament portrays Paul as believing that slavery is good if it is kind. Paul also reveals attitudes toward women that are today deeply embarrassing: "I forbid a woman to have authority over a man." "Women should keep quiet in church."

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm

So if you say muslims are terrorists then I guess you can call Christians sexist slave owners.
 

professor mgw

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
2,573
Location
Bronx, NY
NNID
Prof3ssorMGW
You don't think there are dangerous passages in the bible too?

Many passages in the old testament show God hating everybody the Israelites hate. It describes him killing every first born male in Egypt on the night of the passover. The bible also defines women as being property of men: 10 Commandments- "not covet our neighbor's house, his wife, his slaves, his ox, his ***, etc." The neighbor is clearly a male, and the things that we are forbidden to covet are all male possessions.

The New Testament portrays Paul as believing that slavery is good if it is kind. Paul also reveals attitudes toward women that are today deeply embarrassing: "I forbid a woman to have authority over a man." "Women should keep quiet in church."

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm

So if you say muslims are terrorists then I guess you can call Christians sexist slave owners.
....wow? You have to remember that when the bible refers to "man" alot of the times it refers to both sexes, and also to covet something period is wrong, not just those specific things.

Remember the term christian refers to a person that lives their lives by bible guidelines. Im nbot saying your wrong, some christians do behave in such a manner, but not all. Just saying that quote was too genral is all :). But yeah this isn't meant for this discussion so if u respond to this please don't say to much, i'd rather focus on the mosque. But yeah F.O.R. isn't actually being put into affect if the government interupts because of 9/11 victims, BUT i think they should like try to warn them instead of getting in their way, trying to setup meetings to negotiate etc, there is nothing to negotiate about, if islam is in the right, thats it, period.
 

Evil Eye

Selling the Lie
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Messages
14,433
Location
Madison Avenue
TOS, I'd like to commend you for stepping down from this debate, but the fact that you felt the need to do so, and the views you presented, trouble me.

I think you should spend soem time researching the (vast, nearly infinite) distinction between actual muslims and "Islamic" extremists. The latter are people with a political agenda that use psychological manipulation and outright lies to take susceptible, angry, and confused people (usually very young, naive, and ignorant) and convince them to do things that violate their core beliefs, after first convincing them that doing so is actually in the interest of these beliefs.

Anyone who wants to point to this verse or that verse is just being petty, and has a vendetta to prove against Islam. Let's face the facts, people. That era was an ugly time for every culture. The things viewed as culturual norms would horrify moderate, idealistic young people like us.

For juxtaposition -- and note that I take no side here, I'm merely proving the point that taking any side can be fueled only by bias or ignorance -- I present you with some surprising passages, first from the Bible, then from the Qur'an.

The Bible said:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
This is in The Bible. Let that sink in for a moment. Is that the kind of "core value" you associate with moral Christianity? I doubt it very much.

Sources here and here.


Now for a taste of moral Islam. I'm sure everyone has heard the "if you kill an innocent person, it as though you have killed all of humanity" quote. And if you didn't, well, there you go. Beats the hell of out of "love thy neighbor", doesn't it?

But hey, to show my lack of bias, I'll even go for something far more pragmatic. Islam had its own concept of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." But it was very particular about, y'know. An eye for an eye. Not an arm for an eye, or what have you.

The Qur'an said:
So they went on until, when they met a boy, he slew him. (Musa)
said: Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter?
Certainly you have done an evil thing.
Statements like these run directly counter to things like 9/11. And before you say "well, notice the use of INNOCENT in both those statements -- they might think we're not innocent!" Well, duh. That's exactly the loophole terrorists hinge their diatribe on. That doesn't make it supported by the faith. Not in the slightest.

Here's a little more, though, to run counter to the idea that core Islamic principles direct you to go to war with the nonbelievers and blah blah blah.

The Qur'an said:
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become
clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan
and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which
shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
There's a whole lot of assumption that they've got their faith just right. But, hey, isn't there always? The important thing to note here is the first line. "There is no compulsion in religion." Also, note the use of terms, here. The firmest hold on the handle. Not the only one. And there's certainly nothing about killing those with a looser grip than yours.

Here's one more.

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the
Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day
and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is
no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Whoa, did I just read that right? The Qur'an just clearly stated that everyone who at least believes in God "shall have their reward from the Lord". And note the last line, too. It's a good source of condemnation of malice toward them, as is the entire passage.

Quite tolerant, wouldn't you say? Almost makes them look more tolerant than those Bible-thumping Crusade-starting Christians.

Oh. Oh, wait a minute. What's this!?

The Bible said:
If possible, so far as it depends upon you,
live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge
yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God;
for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay,
says the Lord."
Source here.

But, wait. With such a specific passage, could it be? Could it really be that Christianity directs tolerance of the Muslims as well? But... but how! Why, what about the Crusades? How could the Crusades start with such a clear condemnation of those actions?

Take a look at the first line. "If possible, so far as it depends on you..." The argument is clear. Another loophole. It was "no longer possible". Semantics, henpecking, and a little good old-fashioned human jerkoffery implodes the Bible into itself, allowing someone to commence a horrifying endeavor -- supposedly in its name -- that runs directly against the specific guidance provided by the book for such situations.

But, wait, hold on. If that's the case... what if that's what terrorism, too? A hideous perversion of a faith that bears no resemblance to it, while manipulatively retranslating it as a justification for repugnant actions?

See where I'm going with this?

By the way, here's my source for the Qur'an quotes. I couldn't find a Qur'an passagefinder, so I ended up using an article that seeks to prove that terrorism is a clear misrepresentation of actual Islam. The passages are all cited within the article, including the numbering, so that you may find them yourself.

And here's the kicker. The article was written by a Christian Reverand.
 

TheOriginalSmasher

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
605
Location
Smashville, Pennsylvania
I am fully aware of what you did here, but I only step down because this is a debate I know I can't succeed in. I was biased from the beginning and was expressing emotion rather then facts. It's unfair.

Thanks for spending all of that time to type all of that to help me though.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
To anyone who holds the stance, "They have every right but it's a bad idea", keep in mind that the only reason it is a bad idea is because we in America are racist, islamophobic bigots. Look in this thread-we have education, and I doubt anyone can sanely leave this thread without admitting serious personal bias against islam or changing their minds about this. So if this is what it takes to change people's minds about the mosque, and once we have changed their minds, there remains no argument even remotely against it, we can accept it with open arms. Am I right?

Therefore, it is the fault of the idiots in the populace that this mosque is considered a bad idea/in poor taste. We should not only not bow down to them, we should educate them.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,191
Location
Icerim Mountains
Why don't I say "There's a large chance that this church will be turned into a center for witch-hunting, the persecution of people who aren't christian, and crusades" whenever a new church is built in europe?
Maybe because the last witch-burning in America was over 300 years ago? We know how long ago the Crusades were... and the persecutino of people who aren't Christian, well **** that happens every time my door bell rings on a Sunday morning.

At least he's not protesting the mosque, though, and this is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. 9 years later, and victims of 9/11 are still seeing terrorists popping out of rice bowls with a gat aimed at their forehead. Trauma. I'm not surprised at the outrage against the protesters, this idea that NYC Muslims should ignore their 1st amendment rights is disgusting. But I'm simultaneously not surprised at the outrage -of- the protesters.

But the more I think on it, the more I think they should just go ahead and build the **** thing. It'll be a good tourist spot, one, and two it'll provide a physical location for people to feel empowered by. "Well -I- am okay with Muslims, I'm not a bigot, I'm not terrorized in fear, I'm cool, I went to The Mosque, yo." Plus there's actual Muslims that'll prolly enjoy the spot as a place to pray, though I'm not familiar with the geography there, so I have no idea how far it is to get to a different mosque, but I'm sure there's some thought that's been put into that, and it'll probably be of major convenience for at least some NYC Muslims.
 

Makaveli X

Smash Cadet
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
56
Location
Los Angeles, CA
It's interesting to see the different views people have on this issue.

First off, I think it's important to understand some of the misconceptions and the views people have due to it. Those that question why the Mosque should be built should ask themselves why not, taking into consideration that this Mosque isn't going to be built directly on ground zero. If, in fact, it was going to be built on ground zero, I would be opposed to it, but not because it's a mosque, or a church, or a temple, or a synagogue, or any other place of religious worship. I'd be opposed to it out of respect. But this isn't the situation, and the fact that people are associating the Mosque with terrorist links and arguing against it by stating that it's disrespectful to the victims' families is unfortunate. It's unfortunate because the misconception of Islam continues to persist. History shows the misconception has existed for years before 9/11 in the west. The unfortunate, agonizing actions of Al Qaeda was the fuel that reignited the past.

What happened on September 11th, 2001 was a tragic moment in our history, and my prayers go out to every one of those lives lost. I condemn the destructive acts that Al Qaeda committed, not just physically, but mentally for the families who dealt with the anguish of losing a loved one. My sorrow and sympathy is with the families and those who lost their lives on that day.

I'm going to step down in this debate. I have no right in this perticular thread, I'm biased, because I lost family in 9/11.
I'm sorry for your loss. God bless you and your family, stay strong.

There is also something else that needs to be addressed. Al Qaeda are Muslim extremists and hold a malicious and inaccurate view of Islam. If you look at the tenets of major religions, they typically share goals of peace, equality and justice (major/popular religions, not all). Extremists exist in every religion. Some may be more prone to violence than others. But it's not religion that ruins people, it's the people themselves. They take on a ill-conceived interpretation that goes against the core values of what their religion preaches and make a mockery out of what the religion stands for.

The Mosque being built doesn't stand for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a small group of extremists compared to the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. The fact that Al Qaeda would commit such an atrocious act disappoints me as a Muslim.

Couple weeks ago I was watching CNN; They had panel in which one of them was a family member of a 9/11 victim. She was opposed to the idea of a mosque being built there because of what happened on 9/11 to her brother. She was emotionally invested into the situation and strongly opposed to the Mosque. Although I disagreed with her, I understood she was feeling distressed but I also realized that emotions sometimes make you think illogically and figured that she could be influenced by the emotional aspect of what happened. It's important to remember that 9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda, NOT by Muslims in general and that the majority of Muslims disapprove of the terrorist attacks, including myself.

There is a necessity of peace and tolerance between religions. The only way to attain this is by understanding and being respectful to each others' religion. The Mosque is not disrespectful of ground zero because its a couple of blocks away from it, and because the acts were committed with an INACCURATE interpretation of what Islam stands for, in which only a small group of people are part of. Once again, extremists exist in all religions. Don't hold all Muslims accountable for what happened. As Americans, we should stand up for what's right whether it be for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics or any religion.
 

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
~After what happened on 9/11, do you think a mosque should be built there?

Discuss.
They should definitely build a Mosque given what happened on 9/11. When the Bush Administration blows up 3,000 people and then blames it on Osama Bin Laden with no evidence, Invades two prominently muslim countries for their oil, and harasses Muslims all over the U.S., I think its about time they got a building.

The more people praying for this f'ed up country the better!
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
It's silly to attribute terroism to Islam as a religion, instead of to extremists as a type of people.

Terrorism transcends religion, terroism began in the west with Irish Catholics for starters.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I'm personally not a fan of the mosque building, especially since it it has nothing to do with honoring the people who died at 9/11, but I'm not infuriated about it either. People should realize that the entire thing is not a mosque, just one story is, the rest is a community center. In short, they are overblowing this and I do not think the mosque has any malicious intentions, even if I personally disagree with the building.

I would argue religion as a reason for why I disagree as well, but I see no point in adding deliberate biasness into the discussion.

@Ballistic: You're claiming that there is no evidence supporting that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for it. He is part of Al Queda, which is linked to the 9/11. Given that he's one of it's leaders, I would not be surprise if he was linked into it. I would call that evidence.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
I'm personally not a fan of the mosque building, especially since it it has nothing to do with honoring the people who died at 9/11, but I don't oppose it either.
You do realize that it's 2 blocks away, right? That's a pretty decent distance; complaining about it not being a monument at 2 blocks distance is a little ridiculous.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
You do realize that it's 2 blocks away, right? That's a pretty decent distance; complaining about it not being a monument at 2 blocks distance is a little ridiculous.
Yes I do.

But I hardly find what I said a little ridiculous, especially since there are people going as far as to actively protest it, which I don't believe is necessary. All I'm saying is that I disagree with the building.
 

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
I'm personally not a fan of the mosque building, especially since it it has nothing to do with honoring the people who died at 9/11, but I'm not infuriated about it either. People should realize that the entire thing is not a mosque, just one story is, the rest is a community center. In short, they are overblowing this and I do not think the mosque has any malicious intentions, even if I personally disagree with the building.

I would argue religion as a reason for why I disagree as well, but I see no point in adding deliberate biasness into the discussion.

@Ballistic: You're claiming that there is no evidence supporting that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for it. He is part of Al Queda, which is linked to the 9/11. Given that he's one of it's leaders, I would not be surprise if he was linked into it. I would call that evidence.
There is no evidence linking Al Qaeda, the CIA created group, in 9/11. Please show me if you believe there is evidence.
 

#HBC | Dark Horse

Mach-Hommy x Murakami
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
3,739
I was actually thinking about the part that said "al queda was made by the CIA", but sure, that too.
 

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”
Part I

by Andrew Gavin Marshall


Global Research, September 5, 2010
- 2010-09-04

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

3
digg


Introduction

As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 nears, and the war on terror continues to be waged and grows in ferocity and geography, it seems all the more imperative to return to the events of that fateful September morning and re-examine the reasons for war and the nature of the stated culprit, Al-Qaeda.

The events of 9/11 pervade the American and indeed the world imagination as an historical myth. The events of that day and those leading up to it remain largely unknown and little understood by the general public, apart from the disturbing images repeated ad nauseam in the media. The facts and troubled truths of that day are lost in the folklore of the 9/11 myth: that the largest attack carried out on American ground was orchestrated by 19 Muslims armed with box cutters and urged on by religious fundamentalism, all under the direction of Osama bin Laden, the leader of a global terrorist network called al-Qaeda, based out of a cave in Afghanistan.

The myth sweeps aside the facts and complex nature of terror, al-Qaeda, the American empire and literally defies the laws of physics. As John F. Kennedy once said, “The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”

This three-part series on “The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda” examines the geopolitical historical origins and nature of what we today know as al-Qaeda, which is in fact an Anglo-American intelligence network of terrorist assets used to advance American and NATO imperial objectives in various regions around the world.

Part 1 examines the origins of the intelligence network known as the Safari Club, which financed and organized an international conglomerate of terrorists, the CIA’s role in the global drug trade, the emergence of the Taliban and the origins of al-Qaeda.

The Safari Club

Following Nixon’s resignation as President, Gerald Ford became the new US President in 1974. Henry Kissinger remained as Secretary of State and Ford brought into his administration two names that would come to play important roles in the future of the American Empire: Donald Rumsfeld as Ford’s Chief of Staff, and **** Cheney, as Deputy Assistant to the President. The Vice President was Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller’s brother. When Donald Rumsfeld was promoted to Secretary of Defense, **** Cheney was promoted to Chief of Staff. Ford had also appointed a man named George H.W. Bush as CIA Director.

In 1976, a coalition of intelligence agencies was formed, which was called the Safari Club. This marked the discreet and highly covert coordination among various intelligence agencies, which would last for decades. It formed at a time when the CIA was embroiled in domestic scrutiny over the Watergate scandal and a Congressional investigation into covert CIA activities, forcing the CIA to become more covert in its activities.

In 2002, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal gave a speech in which he stated that in response to the CIA’s need for more discretion, “a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran [under the Shah].”[1] However, “The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations. With the official blessing of George H.W. Bush as the head of the CIA,” Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, “transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history.”[2]

As CIA director, George H.W. Bush “cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, brother-in-law of King Faisal and an early BCCI insider.” Adham had previously acted as a “channel between [Henry] Kissinger and [Egyptian President] Anwar Sadat” in 1972. In 1976, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia formed the Safari Club “to conduct through their own intelligence agencies operations that were now difficult for the CIA,” which was largely organized by the head of French intelligence, Alexandre de Marenches.[3]

The “Arc of Crisis” and the Iranian Revolution

When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, he appointed over two-dozen members of the Trilateral Commission to his administration, which was an international think tank formed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller in 1973. Brzezinski had invited Carter to join the Trilateral Commission, and when Carter became President, Brzezinski became National Security Adviser; Cyrus Vance, also a member of the Commission, became Secretary of State; and Samuel Huntington, another Commission member, became Coordinator of National Security and Deputy to Brzezinski. Author and researcher Peter Dale Scott deserves much credit for his comprehensive analysis of the events leading up to and during the Iranian Revolution in his book, “The Road to 9/11”,* which provides much of the information below.

Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski were to determine the US policy position in the Cold War, and the US-Soviet policy they created was termed, “Cooperation and Competition,” in which Brzezinski would press for “Cooperation” when talking to the press, yet, privately push for “competition.” So, while Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, Brzezinski was pushing for American supremacy over the Soviet Union. Brzezinski and Vance would come to disagree on almost every issue.[4]

In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech in which he stated, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” The Arc of Crisis stretched from Indochina to southern Africa, although, more specifically, the particular area of focus was “the nations that stretch across the southern flank of the Soviet Union from the Indian subcontinent to Turkey, and southward through the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa.” Further, the “center of gravity of this arc is Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer and for more than two decades a citadel of U.S. military and economic strength in the Middle East. Now it appears that the 37-year reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi is almost over, ended by months of rising civil unrest and revolution.”[5]

With rising discontent in the region, “There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept.”[6] A month prior to Brzezinski’s speech, in November of 1978, “President Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s Brzezinski.” Further, “Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.”[7] George Ball’s visit to Iran was a secret mission.[8]

Throughout 1978, the Shah was under the impression that “the Carter administration was plotting to topple his regime.” In 1978, the Queen and Shah’s wife, told Manouchehr Ganji, a minister in the Shah’s government, that, “I wanted to tell you that the Americans are maneuvering to bring down the Shah,” and she continued saying that she believed “they even want to topple the regime.”[9] The US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, thought that the revolution would succeed, and told this to Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General under the Johnson administration, as well as professor Richard Falk, when they were visiting Sullivan in Iran in 1978. Clark and Falk then went from Iran to Paris, to visit Khomeini, who was there in exile. James Bill, a Carter adviser, felt that, “a religious movement brought about with the United States’ assistance would be a natural friend of the United States.”[10]

Also interesting is the fact that the British BBC broadcast pro-Khomeini Persian-language programs daily in Iran, as a subtle form of propaganda, which “gave credibility to the perception of United States and British support of Khomeini.”[11] The BBC refused to give the Shah a platform to respond, and “[r]epeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result.”[12]

In the May 1979 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, Bernard Lewis, a British historian of great influence (hence, the Bilderberg membership), presented a British-American strategy which, “endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an ‘Arc of Crisis,’ which would spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.”[13] Further, it would prevent Soviet influence from entering the Middle East, as the Soviet Union was viewed as an empire of atheism and godlessness: essentially a secular and immoral empire, which would seek to impose secularism across Muslim countries. So supporting radical Islamic groups would mean that the Soviet Union would be less likely to have any influence or relations with Middle Eastern countries, making the US a more acceptable candidate for developing relations.

A 1979 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the Arc of Crisis, saying that, “The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the locus of one of the most intractable conflicts of the twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism.” It went on to explain that post-war US policy in the region was focused on “containment” of the Soviet Union, as well as access to the regions oil.[14] The article continued, explaining that the most “obvious division” within the Middle East is, “that which separates the Northern Tier (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan) from the Arab core,” and that, “After World War II, Turkey and Iran were the two countries most immediately threatened by Soviet territorial expansionism and political subversion.”[15] Ultimately, “the Northern Tier was assured of a serious and sustained American commitment to save it from sharing the fate of Eastern Europe.”[16]

While Khomeini was in Paris prior to the Revolution, a representative of the French President organized a meeting between Khomeini and “current world powers,” in which Khomeini made certain demands, such as, “the shah's removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d'état by the Iranian Army.” The Western powers, however, “were worried about the Soviet Union's empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran's oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.”[17] In February of 1979, Khomeini was flown out of Paris on an Air France flight, to return to Iran, “with the blessing of Jimmy Carter.”[18] Ayatollah Khomeini named Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government on February 4, 1979. As Khomeini had demanded during his Paris meeting in January 1979, that western powers must help in avoiding a coup by the Iranian Army; in that same month, the Carter administration, under the direction of Brzezinski, had begun planning a military coup.[19]

Could this have been planned in the event that Khomeini was overthrown, the US would quickly reinstate order, perhaps even place Khomeini back in power? Interestingly, in January of 1979, “as the Shah was about to leave the country, the American Deputy Commander in NATO, General Huyser, arrived and over a period of a month conferred constantly with Iranian military leaders. His influence may have been substantial on the military's decision not to attempt a coup and eventually to yield to the Khomeini forces, especially if press reports are accurate that he or others threatened to withhold military supplies if a coup were attempted.”[20] No coup was subsequently undertaken, and Khomeini came to power as the Ayatollah of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As tensions increased among the population within Iran, the US sent “security advisers” to Iran to pressure the Shah’s SAVAK (secret police) to implement “a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.” The Carter administration also began publicly criticizing the Shah’s human rights abuses.[21] On September 6, 1978, the Shah banned demonstrations, and the following day, between 700 and 2000 demonstrators were gunned down, following “advice from Brzezinski to be firm.”[22]

The US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, a Trilateral Commission member, said that, “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint,” and the US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure,” while Carter’s adviser, James Bill, said that Khomeini was a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”[23]

The Shah was also very sick in late 1978 and early 1979. So the Shah fled Iran in January of 1979 to the Bahamas, allowing for the revolution to take place. It is especially interesting to understand the relationship between David Rockefeller and the Shah of Iran. David Rockefeller’s personal assistant, Joseph V. Reed, had been “assigned to handle the shah’s finances and his personal needs;” Robert Armao, who worked for Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, was sent to “act as the shah’s public relations agent and lobbyist;” and Benjamin H. Kean, “a longtime associate of Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller,” and David Rockefeller’s “personal physician,” who was sent to Mexico when the shah was there, and advised that he “be treated at an American hospital.”[24]

It is important to note that Rockefeller interests “had directed U.S. policy in Iran since the CIA coup of 1953.”[25] Following the Shah’s flight from Iran, there were increased pressures within the United States by a handful of powerful people to have the Shah admitted to the United States. These individuals were Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, John J. McCloy, former statesman and senior member of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, who was also a lawyer for Chase Manhattan, and of course, David Rockefeller.[26]

Chase Manhattan Bank had more interests in Iran than any other US bank. In fact, the Shah had “ordered that all his government’s major operating accounts be held at Chase and that letters of credit for the purchase of oil be handled exclusively through Chase. The bank also became the agent and lead manager for many of the loans to Iran. In short, Iran became the crown jewel of Chase’s international banking portfolio.”[27]

The Iranian interim government, headed by Prime Minister Bazargan, collapsed in November of 1979, when Iranian hostages seized the US Embassy in Teheran. However, there is much more to this event than meets the eye. During the time of the interim government (February, 1979 to November, 1979), several actions were undertaken which threatened some very powerful interests who had helped the Ayatollah into power.

Chase Manhattan Bank faced a liquidity crisis as there had been billions in questionable loans to Iran funneled through Chase.[28] Several of Chase’s loans were “possibly illegal under the Iranian constitution.”[29] Further, in February of 1979, once the interim government was put in power, it began to take “steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors.” Also, the interim government “wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates ran much higher,” which could have “created a liquidity crisis for the bank which already was coping with financial troubles.”[30]

With the seizure of the American Embassy in Iran, President Carter took moves to freeze Iranian financial assets. As David Rockefeller wrote in his book, “Carter’s ‘freeze’ of official Iranian assets protected our [Chase Manhattan’s] position, but no one at Chase played a role in convincing the administration to institute it.”[31]

In February of 1979, Iran had been taking “steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors. In 1979, as in 1953, a freeze of Iranian assets made this action more difficult.”[32] This was significant for Chase Manhattan not simply because of the close interlocking of the board with those of oil companies, not to mention Rockefeller himself, who is patriarch of the family whose name is synonymous with oil, but also because Chase exclusively handled all the letters of credit for the purchase of Iranian oil.[33]

The Shah being accepted into the United States, under public pressure from Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, precipitated the hostage crisis, which occurred on November 4. Ten days later, Carter froze all Iranian assets in US banks, on the advice of his Treasury Secretary, William Miller. Miller just happened to have ties to Chase Manhattan Bank.[34]

Although Chase Manhattan directly benefited from the seizure of Iranian assets, the reasoning behind the seizure as well as the events leading up to it, such as a hidden role for the Anglo-Americans behind the Iranian Revolution, bringing the Shah to America, which precipitated the hostage crisis, cannot simply be relegated to personal benefit for Chase. There were larger designs behind this crisis. So the 1979 crises in Iran cannot simply be pawned off as a spur of the moment undertaking, but rather should be seen as quick actions taken upon a perceived opportunity. The opportunity was the rising discontent within Iran at the Shah; the quick actions were in covertly pushing the country into Revolution.

In 1979, “effectively restricting the access of Iran to the global oil market, the Iranian assets freeze became a major factor in the huge oil price increases of 1979 and 1981.”[35] Added to this, in 1979, British Petroleum cancelled major oil contracts for oil supply, which along with cancellations taken by Royal Dutch Shell, drove the price of oil up higher.[36] With the first major oil price rises in 1973 (urged on by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), the Third World was forced to borrow heavily from US and European banks to finance development. With the second oil price shocks of 1979, the US Federal Reserve, with Paul Volcker as its new Chairman, (himself having served a career under David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan), dramatically raised interest rates from 2% in the late 70s to 18% in the early 80s. Developing nations could not afford to pay such interest on their loans, and thus the 1980s debt crisis spread throughout the Third World, with the IMF and World Bank coming to the “rescue” with their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which ensured western control over the developing world’s economies.[37]

Covertly, the United States helped a radical Islamist government come to power in Iran, “the center of the Arc of Crisis,” and then immediately stirred up conflict and war in the region. Five months before Iraq invaded Iran, in April of 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly declared the willingness of the US to work closely with Iraq. Two months before the war, Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein in Jordan, where he gave support for the destabilization of Iran.[38] While Saddam was in Jordan, he also met with three senior CIA agents, which was arranged by King Hussein of Jordan. He then went to meet with King Fahd in Saudi Arabia, informing him of his plans to invade Iran, and then met with the King of Kuwait to inform him of the same thing. He gained support from America, and financial and arms support from the Arab oil producing countries. Arms to Iraq were funneled through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.[39] The war lasted until 1988 and resulted in over a million deaths.

This was the emergence of the “strategy of tension” in the “Arc of Crisis,” in particular, the covert support (whether in arming, training, or financing) of radical Islamic elements to foment violence and conflict in a region. It was the old imperial tactic of ‘divide and conquer’: pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests.

The “Arc of Crisis” in Afghanistan: The Safari Club in Action

In 1978, the progressive Taraki government in Afghanistan managed to incur the anger of the United States due to “its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies.”[40] The Afghan government was widely portrayed in the West as “Communist” and thus, a threat to US national security. The government, did, however, undertake friendly policies and engagement with the Soviet Union, but was not a Communist government.

In 1978, as the new government came to power, almost immediately the US began covertly funding rebel groups through the CIA.[41] In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski worked closely with his aid from the CIA, Robert Gates (who is currently Secretary of Defense), in shifting President Carter’s Islamic policy. As Brzezinski said in a 1998 interview with a French publication:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.[42]

Brzezinski elaborated, saying he “Knowingly increased the probability that [the Soviets] would invade,” and he recalled writing to Carter on the day of the Soviet invasion that, “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.” When asked about the repercussions for such support in fostering the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski responded, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”[43]

As author Peter Dale Scott pointed out in, The Road to 9/11:*

For generations in both Afghanistan and the Soviet Muslim Republics the dominant form of Islam had been local and largely Sufi. The decision to work with the Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimately be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda.[44]

Hafizullah Amin, a top official in Taraki’s government, who many believed to be a CIA asset, orchestrated a coup in September of 1979, and “executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.”[45] The Soviets also intervened in order to replace Amin, who was seen as “unpredictable and extremist” with “the more moderate Barbak Karmal.”[46]

The Soviet invasion thus prompted the US national security establishment to undertake the largest covert operation in history. When Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter in 1981, the covert assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen not only continued on the path set by Brzezinski but it rapidly accelerated, as did the overall strategy in the “Arc of Crisis.” When Reagan became President, his Vice President became George H.W. Bush, who, as CIA director during the Ford administration, had helped establish the Safari Club intelligence network and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in Pakistan. In the “campaign to aid the Afghan rebels ... BCCI clearly emerged as a U.S. intelligence asset,” and CIA Director “Casey began to use the outside – the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI – to run what they couldn’t get through Congress. [BCCI president] Abedi had the money to help,” and the CIA director had “met repeatedly” with the president of BCCI.[47]

Thus, in 1981, Director Casey of the CIA worked with Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal who ran the Saudi intelligence agency GID, and the Pakistani ISI “to create a foreign legion of jihadi Muslims or so-called Arab Afghans.” This idea had “originated in the elite Safari Club that had been created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches.”[48]

In 1986, the CIA backed a plan by the Pakistani ISI “to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad.” Subsequently:

More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by CIA and MI6, with the SAS [British Special Forces] training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.[49]

CIA funding for the operations “was funneled through General Zia and the ISI in Pakistan.”[50] Interestingly, Robert Gates, who previously served as assistant to Brzezinski in the National Security Council, stayed on in the Reagan-Bush administration as executive assistant to CIA director Casey, and who is currently Secretary of Defense.

The Global Drug Trade and the CIA

As a central facet of the covert financing and training of the Afghan Mujahideen, the role of the drug trade became invaluable. The global drug trade has long been used by empires for fuelling and financing conflict with the aim of facilitating imperial domination.

In 1773, the British colonial governor in Bengal “established a colonial monopoly on the sale of opium.” As Alfred W. McCoy explained in his masterful book, The Politics of Heroin:

As the East India Company expanded production, opium became India’s main export. [. . . ] Over the next 130 years, Britain actively promoted the export of Indian opium to China, defying Chinese drug laws and fighting two wars to open China’s opium market for its merchants. Using its military and mercantile power, Britain played a central role in making China a vast drug market and in accelerating opium cultivation throughout China. By 1900 China had 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium.[51]

In Indochina in the 1940s and 50s, the French intelligence services “enabled the opium trade to survive government suppression efforts,” and subsequently, “CIA activities in Burma helped transform the Shan states from a relatively minor poppy-cultivating area into the largest opium-growing region in the world.”[52] The CIA did this by supporting the Kuomintang (KMT) army in Burma for an invasion of China, and facilitated its monopolization and expansion of the opium trade, allowing the KMT to remain in Burma until a coup in 1961, when they were driven into Laos and Thailand.[53] The CIA subsequently played a very large role in the facilitation of the drugs trade in Laos and Vietnam throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s.[54]

It was during the 1980s that “the CIA’s covert war in Afghanistan transformed Central Asia from a self-contained opium zone into a major supplier of heroin for the world market,” as:

Until the late 1970s, tribal farmers in the highlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan grew limited quantities of opium and sold it to merchant caravans bound west for Iran and east to India. In its decade of covert warfare against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA’s operations provided the political protection and logistics linkages that joined Afghanistan’s poppy fields to heroin markets in Europe and America.[55]

In 1977, General Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan launched a military coup, “imposed a harsh martial-law regime,” and executed former President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (father to Benazir Bhutto). When Zia came to power, the Pakistani ISI was a “minor military intelligence unit,” but, under the “advice and assistance of the CIA,” General Zia transformed the ISI “into a powerful covert unit and made it the strong arm of his martial-law regime.”[56]

The CIA and Saudi money flowed not only to weapons and training for the Mujahideen, but also into the drug trade. Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq appointed General Fazle Haq as the military governor of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), who would “consult with Brzezinski on developing an Afghan resistance program,” and who became a CIA asset. When CIA Director Casey or Vice President George H.W. Bush reviewed the CIA Afghan operation, they went to see Haq; who by 1982, was considered by Interpol to be an international narcotics trafficker. Haq moved much of the narcotics money through the BCCI.[57]

In May of 1979, prior to the December invasion of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, a CIA envoy met with Afghan resistance leaders in a meeting organized by the ISI. The ISI “offered the CIA envoy an alliance with its own Afghan client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,” who led a small guerilla group. The CIA accepted, and over the following decade, half of the CIA’s aid went to Hekmatyar’s guerillas.[58] Hekmatyar became Afghanistan’s leading mujahideen drug lord, and developed a “complex of six heroin labs in an ISI-controlled area of Baluchistan (Pakistan).”[59]

The US subsequently, through the 1980s, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, gave Hekmatyar more than $1 billion in armaments. Immediately, heroin began flowing from Afghanistan to America. By 1980, drug-related deaths in New York City rose 77% since 1979.[60] By 1981, the drug lords in Pakistan and Afghanistan supplied 60% of America’s heroin. Trucks going into Afghanistan with CIA arms from Pakistan would return with heroin “protected by ISI papers from police search.”[61]

Haq, the CIA asset in Pakistan, “was also running the drug trade,” of which the bank BCCI “was completely involved.” In the 1980s, the CIA insisted that the ISI create “a special cell for the use of heroin for covert actions.” Elaborating:

This cell promoted the cultivation of opium and the extraction of heroin in Pakistani territory as well as in the Afghan territory under Mujahideen control for being smuggled into Soviet controlled areas in order to make the Soviet troops heroin addicts.[62]

This plan apparently originated at the suggestion of French intelligence chief and founder of the Safari Club, Alexandre de Marenches, who recommended it to CIA Director Casey.[63]

In the 1980s, one program undertaken by the United States was to finance Mujahideen propaganda in textbooks for Afghan schools. The US gave the Mujahideen $43 million in “non-lethal” aid for the textbook project alone, which was given by USAID: “The U.S. Agency for International Development, [USAID] coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program,” and “The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks.”[64]

The textbooks were “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings,” and “were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines.” Even since the covert war of the 1980s, the textbooks “have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books.” The books were developed through a USAID grant to the “University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies,” and when the books were smuggled into Afghanistan through regional military leaders, “Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines.” USAID stopped this funding in 1994.[65]

The Rise of the Taliban

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the fighting continued between the Afghan government backed by the USSR and the Mujahideen backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so too did its aid to the Afghan government, which itself was overthrown in 1992. However, fighting almost immediately broke out between rival factions vying for power, including Hekmatyar.

In the early 1990s, an obscure group of “Pashtun country folk” had become a powerful military and political force in Afghanistan, known as the Taliban.[66] The Taliban “surfaced as a small militia force operating near Kandahar city during the spring and summer of 1994, carrying out vigilante attacks against minor warlords.” As growing discontent with the warlords grew, so too did the reputation of the Taliban.[67]

The Taliban acquired an alliance with the ISI in 1994, and throughout 1995, the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI accelerated and “became more and more of a direct military alliance.” The Taliban ultimately became “an asset of the ISI” and “a client of the Pakistan army.”[68] Further, “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western.”[69]

Selig Harrison, a scholar with the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars and “a leading US expert on South Asia,” said at a conference in India that the CIA worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. Harrison has “extensive contact” with the CIA, as “he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan,” while he was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As he further revealed in 2001, “The CIA still has close links with the ISI.”[70] By 1996, the Taliban had control of Kandahar, but still fighting and instability continued in the country.

Osama and Al-Qaeda

Between 1980 and 1989, roughly $600 million was passed through Osama bin Laden’s charity front organizations, specifically the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as Al-Kifah. The money mostly originated with wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and other areas in the Persian Gulf, and was funneled through his charity fronts to arm and fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan.[71]

In the 1980s, the British Special Forces (SAS) were training mujahideen in Afghanistan, as well as in secret camps in Scotland, and the SAS is largely taking orders from the CIA. The CIA also indirectly begins to arm Osama bin Laden.[72] Osama bin Laden’s front charity, the MAK, “was nurtured” by the Pakistani ISI.[73]

Osama bin Laden was reported to have been personally recruited by the CIA in 1979 in Istanbul. He had the close support of Prince Turki bin Faisal, his friend and head of Saudi intelligence, and also developed ties with Hekmatyar in Afghanistan,[74] both of whom were pivotal figures in the CIA-Safari Club network. General Akhtar Abdul Rahman, the head of the Pakistani ISI from 1980 to 1987, would meet regularly with Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and they formed a partnership in demanding a tax on the opium trade from warlords so that by 1985, bin Laden and the ISI were splitting the profits of over $100 million per year.[75] In 1985, Osama bin Laden’s brother, Salem, stated that Osama was “the liaison between the US, the Saudi government, and the Afghan rebels.”[76]

In 1988, Bin Laden discussed “the establishment of a new military group,” which would come to be known as Al-Qaeda.[77] Osama bin Laden’s charity front, the MAK, (eventually to form Al-Qaeda) founded the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, New York, to recruit Muslims for the jihad against the Soviets. The al-Kifah Center was founded in the late 1980s with the support of the U.S. government, which provided visas for known terrorists associated with the organization, including Ali Mohamed, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman and possibly the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta.[78]

This coincided with the creation of Al-Qaeda, of which the al-Kifah Center was a recruiting front. Foot soldiers for Al-Qaeda were “admitted to the United States for training under a special visa program.” The FBI had been surveilling the training of terrorists, however, “it terminated this surveillance in the fall of 1989.” In 1990, the CIA granted Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a visa to come run the al-Kifah Center, who was considered an “untouchable” as he was “being protected by no fewer than three agencies,” including the State Department, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.[79]

Robin Cook, a former British MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote that Al-Qaeda, “literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”[80] Thus, “Al-Qaeda” was born as an instrument of western intelligence agencies. This account of al-Qaeda was further corroborated by a former French military intelligence agent, who stated that, “In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database,” and that it remained as such into the 1990s. He contended that, “Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property,” and further:

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[81]

The creation of Al-Qaeda was thus facilitated by the CIA and allied intelligence networks, the purpose of which was to maintain this “database” of Mujahideen to be used as intelligence assets to achieve US foreign policy objectives, throughout both the Cold War, and into the post-Cold War era of the ‘new world order’.


Part 2 of “The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda” takes the reader through an examination of the new imperial strategy laid out by American geopolitical strategists at the end of the Cold War, designed for America to maintain control over the world’s resources and prevent the rise of competitive powers. Covertly, the “database” (al-Qaeda) became central to this process, being used to advance imperial aims in various regions, such as in the dismantling of Yugoslavia. Part 2 further examines the exact nature of ‘al-Qaeda’, its origins, terms, training, arming, financing, and expansion. In particular, the roles of western intelligence agencies in the evolution and expansion of al-Qaeda is a central focus. Finally, an analysis of the preparations for the war in Afghanistan is undertaken to shed light on the geopolitical ambitions behind the conflict that has now been waging for nearly nine years.

* [Note on the research: For a comprehensive analysis of the history, origins and nature of al-Qaeda, see: Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America, which provided much of the research in the above article.]

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at Globalresearch.ca.

Notes

[1] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 62

[2] Ibid, page 63.

[3] Ibid, page 62.

[4] Ibid, pages 66-67.

[5] HP-Time, The Crescent of Crisis. Time Magazine: January 15, 1979:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919995-1,00.html

[6] Peter Dale Scott, op. cit., page 67.

[7] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 171

[8] Manouchehr Ganji, Defying the Iranian Revolution: From a Minister to the Shah to a Leader of Resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 41

[9] Ibid, page 39.

[10] Ibid, page 41.

[11] Ibid.

[12] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 172

[13] Ibid, page 171.

[14] George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It’s Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 796

[15] Ibid, page 797.

[16] Ibid, page 798.

[17] IPS, Q&A: Iran's Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing. Inter-Press Service: July 26, 2008:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43328

[18] Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813077590&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[19] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 89.

[20] George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It’s Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 810

[21] F. William Engdahl, op cit., page 172.

[22] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 81.

[23] Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813077590&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[24] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 83.

[25] Ibid, page 84.

[26] Ibid, page 81.

[27] Ibid, pages 85-86.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid, page 87.

[30] Ibid, pages 88-89.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid, pages 87-88.

[33] Ibid, page 85.

[34] Ibid, page 86.

[35] Ibid, page 88.

[36] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 173

[37] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve. Global Research: August 3, 2009:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14614

[38] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 89

[39] PBS, Secrets of His Life and Leadership: An Interview with Said K. Aburish. PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

[40] Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11279

[41] Oleg Kalugin, How We Invaded Afghanistan. Foreign Policy: December 11, 2009:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/11/how_we_invaded_afghanistan

[42] ‘'Le Nouvel Observateur' (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76:
http://www.ucc.ie/acad/appsoc/tmp_s...anistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm

[43] Ibid.

[44] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73

[45] Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11279

[46] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 78.

[47] Ibid, page 116.

[48] Ibid, page 122.

[49] Ibid, page 123.

[50] Ibid,.

[51] Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. (Lawrence Hill Books: Chicago, 2003), page 80

[52] Ibid, page 162.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid, pages 283-386.

[55] Ibid, page 466.

[56] Ibid, page 474.

[57] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73

[58] Alfred W. McCoy, op cit., page 475.

[59] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 74.

[60] Ibid, pages 75-76.

[61] Ibid, page 124.

[62] Ibid, pages 75-76.

[63] Ibid, page 124.

[64] Carol Off, Back to school in Afghanistan. CBC: May 6, 2002:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html

[65] Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad. The Washington Post: March 23, 2002:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5339-2002Mar22?language=printer

[66] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. Penguin Books, New York, 2004: Page 328

[67] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 11, 2001. (London: Penguin, 2005), page 285

[68] Steve Coll, “Steve Coll” Interview with PBS Frontline. PBS Frontline: October 3, 2006:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/coll.html

[69] Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), page 326

[70] ToI, “CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban”. The Times of India: March 7, 2001:
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm

[71] Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), pages 279-280

[72] Simon Reeve, The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and the Future of Terrorism. (London: André Deutsch Ltd, 1999), page 168

[73] Michael Moran, Bin Laden comes home to roost. MSNBC: August 24, 1998:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/

[74] Veronique Maurus and Marc Rock, The Most Dreaded Man of the United States, Controlled a Long Time by the CIA. Le Monde Diplomatique: September 14, 2001: http://www.wanttoknow.info/010914lemonde

[75] Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11. (New York: Random House, 2003), page 29

[76] Steve Coll, The Bin Ladens. (New York: Penguin, 2008), pages 7-9

[77] AP, Al Qaeda Financing Documents Turn Up in Bosnia Raid. Fox News: February 19, 2003:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78937,00.html

[78] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: pages 140-141

[79] Ibid, page 141.

[80] Robin Cook, The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means. The Guardian: July 8, 2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

[81] Pierre-Henri Bunel, Al Qaeda -- the Database. Global Research: November 20, 2005:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291
Al Qai'da literally means "the base" its where the CIA trained the militants that would fight the soviets.
 

El Nino

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
1,288
Location
Ground zero, 1945
That article does not mention evidence (or the lack thereof) for Al Qaeda involvement. It simply talks about the confusion over the identities of the hijackers because their names are common Middle Eastern names.

Also, the BBC put out an update to that article five years later:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

I was actually thinking about the part that said "al queda was made by the CIA", but sure, that too.
CIA involvement in the Mujahideen in Afghanistan is common knowledge, I thought. Al Qaeda rose out of that involvement

@Ballistics: So, where are you going with that? That the CIA had a hand in Al Qaeda's creation does not mean that the CIA is currently in control of that organization. Or did you mean to imply something else?
 

Pragmatic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Mississauga, Ontario
It's silly to attribute terroism to Islam as a religion, instead of to extremists as a type of people.
My exact thoughts.

On a related note, Muslims have been praying near Ground Zero even before the 9/11 attacks, it's only considered controversial because of that specific incident.

Now, while it may be considered provocation, this argument is negated due to the fact the Pentagon [correct me if I'm wrong] has featured a multi-cultural religious centre for years?

While Islamic terrorists may have been responsible, they don't equate to an entire community, formed by billions of people, several of them victims in their native countries due to the same terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda.

Wouldn't preventing this structure being built, breach on the core principals that Americans are entitled to fundamental religious freedom? Wouldn't that be intolerance and hatred, the same accusation aimed at terrorists?

That's essentially hypocrisy, although the reasoning is perfectly justified.
 

fragbait

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
4,230
Location
Over the skies of Emeria.
I mean to imply that the organization known as Al Qaeda is the scapegoat for the CIA since it is literally the "database" that they use for terror suspect involvment. However these people are just known for 9/11 where there is clear evidence of controlled demolition of buildings they clearly had no access to be in. So who did?
Don't you dare turn this into another 9/11 truth thread.
 

fragbait

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
4,230
Location
Over the skies of Emeria.
Seriously. Don't start the 9/11 truth stuff in here. I'm so sick of it.


My previous opinions on this subject still stand. I also find that the guy who was building the mosque should get a pat on the back for taking this heat so well and being the man to compromise for a nation that hates him just for his religion.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
But if the motive was to spark fear and hatred of the Middle East in order to justify invading it, why three buildings? Surely one would be enough to achieve the intended objective?

To me, only a terroist would care about maximising the number of casualties.
 

fragbait

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
4,230
Location
Over the skies of Emeria.
I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a Mod to come in this thread and clean up the 9/11 truth BS. It doesn't belong here.

My exact thoughts.

On a related note, Muslims have been praying near Ground Zero even before the 9/11 attacks, it's only considered controversial because of that specific incident.

Now, while it may be considered provocation, this argument is negated due to the fact the Pentagon [correct me if I'm wrong] has featured a multi-cultural religious centre for years?

While Islamic terrorists may have been responsible, they don't equate to an entire community, formed by billions of people, several of them victims in their native countries due to the same terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda.

Wouldn't preventing this structure being built, breach on the core principals that Americans are entitled to fundamental religious freedom? Wouldn't that be intolerance and hatred, the same accusation aimed at terrorists?

That's essentially hypocrisy, although the reasoning is perfectly justified.
I agreed with everything up to the last statement, that the hypocrisy is justified. There is no justification for denying peaceful citizens their Constitutional Freedoms.
 

freeman123

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
1,855
Location
GA
NNID
josephf5
I think that they have every right to build a mosque near ground zero. A person's property is the product of their labor. To tell someone what they can or can't do on their own property is to make a claim over the product of their labor; which is a form of slavery. Anyone who doesn't have a right to themselves, their labor, and the product of their labor is a slave. To be fair to the people against the mosque though, I don't think anyone's saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do it; just that they shouldn't do it.

That being said, I think that the vast majority of the people in favor of allowing the mosque are hypocrites. For example, how many of those people would support my right to shoot a porno on my front lawn? I'd be doing it on my own property. So what's the problem? Most people would object on the grounds that shooting a porno on my front lawn, in view of my neighbors and anyone else who may go past my house, would be inappropriate and offensive.

Well, "inappropriate" and "offensive" are completely subjective term. Someone claiming that a mosque near ground zero is inappropriate or offensive has just as valid of a case. Either both are okay or neither are okay. I say both are okay, because you don't have a right to not be offended.
 

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
But if the motive was to spark fear and hatred of the Middle East in order to justify invading it, why three buildings? Surely one would be enough to achieve the intended objective?

To me, only a terroist would care about maximising the number of casualties.
Don't forget about the Pentagon too. I found this French Intelligence Officer's article to be really informative. My speculation is that they had to hit the twin towers for the casualties, the wtc 7 building for the CIA documents, and the Pentagon for other files.

Who was behind the September eleventh attacks?

Thierry Meyssan

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca , 19 April 2002


Translation of the transcript of the presentation by Thierry Meyssan on 8 April 2002 at the Zayed Center in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), at a gathering organized under the auspices Arab League.For the original French text click here . Read also in French, the transcript of Meyssan's Interview with TV5.



Your Highness, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the first minutes following the first attack on the World Trade Center, officials suggested to the media that the person behind the attacks was Osama bn Laden, the epitome of Muslim fanaticism. Not long after, the recently appointed director of the FBI, Robert Mueller III, designated nineteen kamikazes by name and mobilized all the means at the disposal of his agency to track down their accomplices. The FBI thus never undertook any investigation but, instead, organized a man hunt, which, in the eyes much of the United States public, quickly took on the appearance of an Arab hunt. This reached such a pitch that people were incited to attack – even kill – Arabs whom they naively considered collectively responsible for the attacks.

There was no investigation by Congress, which, at the request of the White House, renounced exercising its constitutional role, supposedly in order not to adversely affect national security. Nor was there investigation by any media representatives, who had been summoned to the White House and prevailed upon to abstain from following up any leads lest such inquiries also adversely affect national security.

If we analyze the attacks of September the eleventh, we notice first off that there was much more to them than the official version acknowledges.

1.We know about only four planes, whereas at one point it was a question of eleven planes. Further, an examination of the insider-trading conducted in relation to the attacks shows put-option speculative trading in the stock of three airline companies: American Airlines, United Airlines and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. 2.The official version does not include the attack on the White House annex, the Old Executive Office Building (called the "Eisenhower Building"). Yet, on the morning of the eleventh, ABC television broadcast, live, pictures of a fire ravaging the presidential services building. 3.Neither does the official version take into account the collapse of a third building in Manhattan World Trade Center complex, independently of the twin towers. This third building was not hit by a plane. However, it, too, was ravaged by a fire before collapsing for an unknown reason. This building contained the world's biggest secret CIA operations base, where the Agency engaged in economic intelligence gathering that the military-industrial lobby considered a waste of resources that should have been devoted to strategic intelligence gathering.

If we look closely at the attack against the Pentagon, we notice that the official version amounts to an enormous lie.

According to the Defense Department, a Boeing 757, all trace of which had been lost somewhere over Ohio, flew some 500 kilometers (300 miles) without being noticed. It supposedly entered Pentagon air space and descended on to the lawn surrounding the heliport, bounced off the lawn, broke a wing in collision with an electric transformer station, hit the façade at the level of the ground floor and first story, and was totally consumed by fire, leaving no other traces than two dysfunctional black boxes and pieces of passengers' bodies.

It is obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could, for some 500 kilometers, escape detection by civil and military radar, by fighter-bomber planes sent in pursuit of it and by observation satellites that had just been activated.

It is also obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 could enter the Pentagon's air space without being destroyed by one or more of the five missile batteries protecting the building.

When one examines the photographs of the façade, taken in the minutes following the attack (even before the Arlington civilian fire fighters had time to deploy), one sees no trace of the right wing on fire in front of the façade, nor any hole in the façade into which the plane could have been swallowed up.

Apparently without the least fear of laying itself open to ridicule, the Defense Department declared that the jet engines, made out of tempered steel, had disintegrated under the shock of the impact – without damaging the façade. The aluminum of the fuselage is claimed to have combusted at more than 2,500° Celsius within the building and to have been transformed into gas, but the bodies of the passengers which it contained were so little burned that they were later identified from their finger prints.

Responding to journalists during a press conference at the Pentagon, the fire chief claimed that "no voluminous debris from the aircraft" had remained, "nor any piece of the fuselage, nor anything of that sort". He declared that neither he nor his men knew what had become of the aircraft.

Close examination of the official photographs of the scene of the attack, taken and published by the Defense Department, shows that no part of the Pentagon bears any mark of an impact that could be attributed to the crash of a Boeing 757.

One must acknowledged the evidence: it is impossible that the attack against the Pentagon on September 11, killing 125 persons, was carried out by a jet airliner.

The scene of the attack was thoroughly disturbed on the following day by the immediate launch of new construction work, with the result that many of the elements necessary to reconstruct what had happened are missing. The elements that do remain, however, converge in a single hypothesis that it is not possible to prove with certainty.

An air traffic controller from Washington has testified seeing on radar an object flying at about 800 kilometers per hour, moving initially toward the White House, then turning sharply toward the Pentagon, where it seemed to crash. The air traffic controller has testified that the characteristics of the flight were such that it could only have been a military projectile.

Several hundred witnesses have claimed that they head "a shrill noise like the noise of a fighter-bomber", but nothing like the noise of a civilian aircraft.

Eye-witnesses have said that they saw "something like a cruise missile with wings" or a small flying object "like a plane carrying eight or twelve persons".

The flying object penetrated the building without causing major damage to the façade. It crossed several of the building rings of the Pentagon, creating in each wall it pierced a progressively bigger hole. The final hole, perfectly circular, measured about one meter eighty in diameter. When traversing the first ring of the Pentagon, the object set off a fire, as gigantic as it was sudden. Huge flames burst from the building licking the façades, then they shrank back just as fast, leaving behind a cloud of black soot. The fire spread through a part of the first ring and along two perpendicular corridors. It was so sudden that the fire protection system could not react.

All these testimonies and observations correspond to the effects of an AGM[air to ground missile]-86C of the third (most recent) generation of CALCM [conventional air launched cruise missile -- see picture at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm], equipped with depleted uranium warheads and guided by GPS [global positioning system]. This type of missile, seen from the side, would easily remind one of a small civilian airplane, but it is not a plane. It produces a shrill whistle comparable to that of a fighter-bomber, can be guided with enough accuracy to be directed through a window, can pierce the most resistant armor and can set off a fire – independent of its piercing effect – that will generate heat of over 2,000° Celsius.

This type of missile was developed jointly by the Navy and the Air Force and is fired from a plane. The missile used against the Pentagon destroyed the part of the building where the new Supreme Naval Command Center was being installed. Following the attack, the Navy Chief of Staff, Admiral Vernon Walters, failed to show up in the crisis room of the National Military Joint Intelligence Center when the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported there. Instead, he abruptly left the Pentagon.

Who, then, could have fired such a missile on the Pentagon? The answer was given by the off-the-record revelations of Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, and by Karl Rove, senior advisor to the president, to journalists from the New York Times and the Washington Post. Eighteen days later, these men discounted the veracity of the information they had given the journalists, claiming that they had been speaking under the stress of great emotion.

According to those close to George W. Bush, in the course of the morning, the Secret Service received a telephone call from those behind the attacks, apparently in order to make demands. To give credence to their demands, the masterminds revealed the secret codes giving access to the secure telephone lines available to the president for secure communication with the various intelligence agencies and services as well as for access to the nuclear arsenal. In fact, only a very few persons with the highest security clearances, in the top ranks of the government, could have had these codes. It follows that at least one of the persons behind the attacks of September 11 has a top government post, either civilian or military.

To give credence to the fable of Islamic terrorists, the United States authorities invented kamikazes.

Although it would have been possible for a well organized group of persons to bring fire arms into commercial air liners, the kamikazes apparently used cardboard cutters as their only weapons. They are said to have learned to pilot Boeing 757s and 767s in the space of several hours of simulator training, becoming better pilots than professionals. This mastery allowed them to carry out complex in-flight approach maneuvers.

The Justice Department has never explained how it established the list of the kamikazes. The airline companies have furnished the exact number of passengers in each plane, and the passenger lists, incomplete, do not mention the persons who boarded at the last minute. In checking the these lists, one notices that names of the kamikazes are not on them and that only three passengers are not identified for flight 11 and only two for flight 93. It is thus impossible that 19 kamikazes boarded. Further, several of those listed as kamikazes have turned up, alive. The FBI nonetheless maintains that the high-jackers have all been definitively identified and that complementary information such as birth dates makes it improbable that they could be confused with persons of the same name. For those who might doubt this, the FBI has a ridiculous proof: whereas the planes burned and the twin towers collapsed, the passport of Mohammed Atta was miraculously found intact on the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center.

The existence of high-jackers, whether these or others, is confirmed by telephone calls made by several passengers to members of their families. Unfortunately, these conversations are known to us only by hearsay and have not been published, even in the case of those that were recorded. Thus, it has been impossible to verify that they were actually made from a particular cell phone of from a telephone on board. Here, too, we are asked to take the FBI at its word.

Further, it was not indispensable to have high-jackers to carry out the attacks. The Global Hawk technology, developed by the Air Force, makes it possible to take control of a commercial airliner regardless of the intentions of its pilot(s) and to direct it by remote control.

There remains the case of Osama bn Laden. If it is generally admitted that he was a CIA agent or collaborator during the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the current version of events claims that he turned coat and became public enemy number one of the United States. This story does not bear up under scrutiny either. The French daily le Figaro revealed that last July, Osmam bn Laden was a patient at the American hospital in Dubai, where he was visited by the head of CIA regional office. CBS television in the United States has revealed that, on September 10, Osama bn Laden was undergoing dialysis at the Rawalpindi military hospital, under the protection of the Pakistani army. And the renown French journalist Michel Peyrard, who was a prisoner of the Taliban, has recounted how, last November, Osama bn Laden was living openly in Jalalabad while the United States was bombing other regions of the country. It is difficult to believe that the greatest army in the world, come to Afghanistan to arrest him, was unable to do so, while the mollah Omar was able to escape from United States military force on a moped.

In view of the elements that I have just presented, it appears that the attacks of September can not be attributed to foreign terrorists from the Arab-Muslim world – even if some of those involved might have been Muslim – but to United States terrorists.

The day after the attacks of September 11, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368 acknowledged "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter", calling on "all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable".

If one wishes to heed the call of the Security Council, to enforce Resolution 1368 and to punish those who really are guilty, the only way to accurately identify the guilty parties is to set up a commission of inquiry whose independence and objectivity are guaranteed by the United Nations. This would also be the only way to preserve international peace. In the meantime, Your Highness, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, the foreign military interventions of the United States of America are devoid of any basis in international law, whether it be their recent intervention in Afghanistan or their announced interventions in Iran, Iraq and in numerous other countries.



Thierry Meyssan is the author of the book 11 septembre 2001: l’Effroyable imposture, Paris: Editions Carnot, 2002, Copyright © T Meyssan 2002.

The URL of the original article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEY204C.html

I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a Mod to come in this thread and clean up the 9/11 truth BS. It doesn't belong here.

Actually since the OP specifically says: Given what happened on 9/11... finding out who actually blew everything up is very important, since your opinion on whether or not they should build a mosque is largely based on the lie that muslims kamikazed themselves into the buildings.
 

Pragmatic

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Mississauga, Ontario
.

I agreed with everything up to the last statement, that the hypocrisy is justified. There is no justification for denying peaceful citizens their Constitutional Freedoms.
I said reasoning, doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted as absolute scientific fact.

Although our reasoning is farily liberal, someone personally affected by these terroritst attacks, such as TOS, might not be as tolerant and understanding of constructing a foreign symbol, one associated with these terrorists, on sacred ground.

Since both sides present valid, if somewhat unorthodox reasoning, both must be considered.
 

fragbait

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
4,230
Location
Over the skies of Emeria.
So, for a case of where one side is completely fueled by ignorance and hatred, we must consider them in the same light as a tolerant and peaceful side.

I really fail to grasp this in any measure of equality at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom