Saturday, September 23, 2006

Armitage Bush Musharraf Pakistan ISI 9-11 Stone Age

The US had enough info before 9-11, to tell President Bush on August 6, 2001 that bin Laden was determined to attack in the US. Did Pakistan know as much by that date? Pakistan created the Taliban in 1993 or 1994. (see BBC on Taliban) The Taliban with Pakistan's support took control of Afghanistan in 1996. bin Laden moved to Afghanistan in 1996. Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia were the only 3 countries to recognize the Taliban. All of them have been reported in one way or another since 9-11 to have known or assisted in 9-11.

Pakistan exploded its nuke in May 1998. Al Qaeda attacked the US embassies in August 98 and the USS Cole in 2000. George Tenet of the US CIA met in Pakistan in May 2001. So did Porter Goss and Bob Graham in August 2001. This was presumably an attempt to get Pakistan's support against al Qaeda. So Pakistan was being told by the US that the US had information something was up and the US wanted Pakistan to stop bin Laden and al Qaeda. Pakistan likely wanted money but also said that its people wouldn't be able to understand it doing that.

If the US had enough information before 9-11 to figure the plot out, but lacked the motivation to combine its information, and if Pakistan had the same or more info, but did have the motivation, then Pakistan knew about 9-11 beforehand. Pakistan did have more motivation, it created the Taliban and its linked into their society. They have more general awareness, e.g. language skills, family relationships, personal relationships, etc. That leaves specific info. If one studies the history of al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Pakistan ISI, it seems a reasonable hypothesis that the Pakistan ISI would have more info on al Qaeda operations than the US government.

The information motivation box. The horizontal axis is information possessed by a government or spy agency like CIA or ISI. The vertical axis is motivation. High information and high motivation leads to success in determining what is going on. The US before 9-11 had medium information let's call it. But the US had the Jamie Gorelick Wall Memo and other indicators of low motivation to combine the information that we now know it had. Moreover, it had more information that we haven't been told about. Pakistan only needed to know what the US government has revealed it knew to have been able to figure out what was going on.

Pakistan's ISI never gave the US a warning, even though other countries did. See the Complete 9-11 Timeline under warnings. The UAE and Saudi Arabia also didn't give the US warnings.

When 9-11 came, the head of the Pakistan ISI, General Mahmood Ahmed was meeting in DC with the heads of the intelligence committees in Congress, Porter Goss, later appointed by Bush to head CIA and Senator Bob Graham. Graham later said that the evidence of foreign government involvement was strong.

The US's people likely realized very quickly the information motivation box and that this meant that Pakistan's ISI likely knew. They likely guessed right away on 9-11 that Ahmed knew and was there to negotiate money from the US to fight al Qaeda. Graham and Goss had been in Pakistan in August 2001 to meet with Ahmed and discuss what it would take to get Pakistan's ISI to support a fight against al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda had already attacked the US in August 1998 at the US embassies in Africa and in 2000 against the USS Cole in Yemen. Clinton had gotten the agreement of the government in Pakistan before Musharraf's coup in October 1998 to support the fight against bin Laden and try to capture him.

The new government under Musharraf had abandoned this cooperative attitude. They were angy at the US over the US dropping aid to Pakistan after the Soviets left Afghanistan c. 1990. They were resentful, and this included Musharraf and Ahmed who led the coup in 1999. It also included former Pakistan ISI director General Gul. Gul was working closely with bin Laden as an adviser. Gul blamed 9-11 on Israel's Mossad in an interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave.

-------Burden of Proof is on Musharraf to show he didn't know---

Musharraf was head of Pakistan. The ISI reported to him. The Director of the ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed reported to Musharraf and put Musharraf in power in the October 12, 1999 coup. The Pakistan ISI created the Taliban in 1993/94 and put them in power in Afghanistan in 1996. Bin Laden then came from Sudan to Afghanistan to join the Taliban and Omar. Omar was Pakistan's man. Omar is in Pakistan under ISI protection.

Omar we know approved 9-11. But Omar would not have done so without Pakistan ISI approval. When Ahmed went to see Omar after 9-11 to get him to give up bin Laden at US demand, the delegation actually encouraged Omar to fight, see Hassan Abbas comments below. The presumption is that the subordinates were acting in accordance with the orders of their superiors until shown otherwise.

So the presumption that Musharraf has the burden to rebut is that Musharraf knew and authorized 9-11. Omar wouldn't approve it without his knowing that General Amed Director of the ISI approved it. Why? Because the ISI put Omar in power and was funding him and supplying him with arms. Why? Because Omar hoped to go to Pakistan and be sheltered if the Americans attacked Afghanistan, which is what happened, Pakistan shelters Omar to this day along with bin Laden.

Nothing that has happened since 9-11 has tended towards showing Musharraf was not involved. Every event since 9-11 is consistent with Musharraf being involved. So "Mush knew, end of story" as a rediff blog says.


======================Stone Age===========================

60 Minutes

"Musharraf: U.S. Threatened Pakistan
Also Speaks About Country's Leaked Nuclear Secrets
Sept. 21, 2006"

Steve Kroft will ask questions like, "Is our supposed ally in the war on terrorism really playing both sides of the street? Kroft questions Pakistan's leader about the sales of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, and also about the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists using his country as a base. "

After viewing Musharraf on 60 minutes.

Mush was asked if he knew about A Q Khan before 2003 when he was shown Pakistan centrifuge blue prints by the US. Over 18 tons of material was shipped by Khan to Libya and Iran. Mush said that Khan might have taken it in his car. Mush said he was insulted by Armitage. What about us? Mush said he was disappointed that Pakistanis born in the UK had dual citizenship and came back to Pakistan to get authorization to carry out their missions.

Kroft didn't ask Mush about the funding of 9-11 or knowledge of it. Mush's answers completely lacked credibility. Mush thinks we are children to believe him. Kroft almost said as much about Bush believing him. We need to get Pakistan to give up its nuclear weapons, which it plans to put on subs.

---------------------

Musharraf statement:

AFP

---quote from AFP link below--------------------
US threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to stone age' after 9/11: Musharraf

The Pakistani leader said the comments were delivered to his intelligence director, according to selected transcripts of the interview with CBS television's "60 Minutes" investigative news programme due to be broadcast Sunday.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Musharraf said.

"I think it was a very rude remark," Musharraf says in the interview. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that's what I did."

--------end of quote-------------------------------------


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2369505,00.html

"
We'll bomb you to Stone Age, US told Pakistan
FromTim Reid in Washington
Musharraf reveals post-9/11 threat in book serialised by The Times

President Musharraf of Pakistan

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, the President of Pakistan, claimed last night that the Bush Administration threatened to bomb his country “into the Stone Age” if it did not co-operate with the US after 9/11
"


Bush denies he knew

Voice of America



Armitage denies Stone Age comment

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15584115.htm

On Friday Sep 22, 2006, Armitage gave an extended interview on MSNBC denying that he made the "stone age" remark, but iterating other remarks he did make to Lt. Gen Mahmood Ahmed, whom Armitage referred to as Gen Mahmood.


"US Pakistan relationship getting shaky"
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15581707.htm

Discussion of Musharraf statement.

"Bush, Armitage, Musharraf, and bombing Pakistan 'back to stone age'"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8540.html


Maureen Dowd: Axis of Sketchy Allies - Is Musharraf One of "Us"?

9/11 Inside Job Unravels: Pakistan Threatened by Bush

The Inside Job unravel post at Xenophilia discussed Pakistan in detail.

-------------------------Hassan Abbas Comments--------

Hassan Abbas author of "Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism" comments.

"In the afternoon (of Sep 12, 2001), Mahmood (Ahmed) was invited to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, where he told George Tenet, the CIA director, that in his view Mullah Omar, the Taliban chief, was a religious man with humanitarian instincts and not a man of violence!"

So Ahmd was lying right on Sep 12, 2001. That is consistent with him being in on 9-11.

"Interestingly Mahmood on his return from the US also informed Musharraf about his visit to Pentagon after the tragedy and argued that there were no traces of any commercial plane having hit the Pentagon. He also made a case that in his assessment, the attacks were an inside job!" Hamid Gul was blaming Israel in an interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave.

search Hamid Gul Arnaud de Borchgrave.
"Gulled by Gul" Nov 29, 2004
"Know your enemy" 2005

Hassan Abbas tells us:

"On September 16, 2001, Musharraf sent a delegation to the Taliban with the mission to convince them to hand over Osama bin Laden. It included Lieutenant General Mahmood, and a group of religious figures known to have good relations with Taliban. The mission failed, but more worrisome was the revelation that Mufti Shamzai, instead of conveying the official message, encouraged Mullah Omar to start a jihad against the United States if it attacked Afghanistan."

Hassan Abbas says that General Ahmed and Pakistan were not involved in 9-11 beforehand.
"Abbas is a former Pakistani government official who served in the administrations of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1995–1996) and President Pervez Musharraf (1999–2000)." (from his web page at Harvard KSG.) It appears that Abbas is really saying that Ahmed was in on 9-11, but that Musharraf was not. The whole Abbas article is to try to show that Mahmood Ahmed was arrogant and head strong and that he was the one responsible, not Musharraf. Abbas paints Musharraf as an innocent naif, who is forced to remove Ahmed for arrogance.

In reality, Musharraf has admitted he was deeply involved in starting the India Pakistan war in Kargil in 1999 before the 1999 coup.

Hassan Abbas is employed at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government as a Research Fellow.

Hassan Abbas Harvard KSG.

Very good review of Abbas's book on Pakistan. "An inside look at the changes in Pakistan"
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff. November 17, 2004 "Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America’s War on Terror", By Hassan Abbas, M. E. Sharpe, 267 pp., paperback, $25.95
"

Fareed Zakaria got his Ph.D. at Harvard's KSG.

Discussion of Kargil incident
-------------------Pakistan related blogs

Glass House: Hot Time for Musharraf in the US?

Pakistaniat "Who said what to whom, did what, when and why?" Adil Najam September 25th

Brangelina (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt for search engines) film on Daniel Pearl's murder.

Dissecting 'The Musharraf Letter'

Conspiracy type theory related to Pope's quoting Manuel II

Tariq Ali on Pope.
http://www.tariqali.org/

----------------India news or blogs -----

B Raman "The Guilty Men of 9/11" September 10, 2003. Outstanding discussion board of Pakistan's likely involvement follows this article.



"Nawaz Sharif and Ziauddin had not kept Musharraf and Aziz in the picture. On discovering�Ziauddin's�secret visit to Kandahar, Musharraf sent Aziz to Mullah Omar�to tell him that he should not obey any�instructions issued by�Ziauddin. Sharif�found out�about this, and this was one�factor which contributed�to his decision to sack Musharraf on October 12, 1999, which in turn led to his overthrow and the general�assuming power."

"
During his interrogation by the Karachi police, Omar Sheikh,�principal accused in�the�Daniel Pearl murder case,�was reported to have�stated that during a visit to Kandahar in�mid-2001 he had discovered�Al Qaeda's�plans for the terrorist strikes in the US and had conveyed this to Ehsanul Haq at Peshawar on his return�from Kandahar.�Haq is a close personal friend of Musharraf and it is very unlikely that he would�not have immediately informed Musharraf about it. Thus, definitely�Haq and most probably�Musharraf himself, were aware of�Al Qaeda's plans for the terrorist strikes in the US, but for reasons�not clear, they chose not to alert the US about it."

-------------Selig Harrison Friend or Foe ---

"Pakistan: Friend or Foe?"
"The U.S. shouldn't prop up President Musharraf's military regime."
By Selig S. Harrison
September 5, 2006




-------------------------

A whole discussion on whether Musharraf (Mush) knew:

"Mush knew"

"
Time for honesty.
Mush knew. End of story.
"

also, the following is brusque, I quote from same page,



Pervez Musharraf (Author)

a different view: (have not read it)

London Times. Mush says that Sheikh Omad who is said to have paid the 9-11 hijackers was a British agent.

"The President outlines the role played by a former London public schoolboy, Omar Sheikh, in the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, in February 2002.

General Musharraf says that Sheikh, who orchestrated the abduction, was recruited by MI6 while he was studying at the London School of Economics and sent to the Balkans to take part in jihad operations there. He alleges that Sheikh later double-crossed British intelligence. “At some point he probably became a rogue or double agent,” General Musharraf says."

This is a standard KGB/SVR trick. You say that an agent who has blown up was CIA. Putin said that Andrei Shleifer was a CIA agent to try to deflect attention if it becomes widely known that Russia may have used academic kompromat to try to pressure low interest rate loans from Harvard prof Larry Summers and MIT econ prof Stanley Fischer during the 1990's when they were at US Treasury and IMF. (This is a hypothesis. See other posts for disclaimers.)

Discussion of Mush book:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707280/posts

"Mush admits his men were behind Kargil, claims gain"

Musharraf lied about Kargil he is in effect admitting. Musharraf is also now claiming India started it. This is another "gasp" as the Times of India points out. Musharraf is appearing to be a pathological liar. He is also responsible for the Kargil war in 1999, before the coup in October 1999. Covering up the Kargil war may be part of the reason of the coup in October 1999. It appears that Musharraf uses terrorism, lies, violence, etc. to further his own interest. He is not in the least bothered to lie or to kill 3000 or more, if it advances his interests. Musharraf admits he was behind killing many Indians and Pakistanis in the Kargill war, so why not that he was behind the 9-11 killings?

Pakistan's ISI uses torture. That is known. Musharraf condones and uses torture, like Bush. They both are in the torture after 9-11. General Ahmed was part of using torture at the ISI. Why should we not believe that Musharraf was behind 9-11? The torture of the ISI is already a crime against humanity and a violation of international law and the rights of man. Kargil appears to be a war crime? Why not add 9-11 to his crimes of torture and unprovoked aggression against India in 1999? Then he was part of a coup as a cover up of his involvement? At what level of crimes, torture, harboring terrorists, supporting the Taliban do we add making false statements?

Musharraf manuscript says he suspected A. Q. Khan much earlier than he has admitted?

"In early 1999, I started seeing the first signs of some suspicious activities by Dr AQ Khan.

I was concerned that Dr Khan might have been involved in illicit activities prior to March 2001, but I strongly believe that we have now ensured that he could not get away with anything more, and that once he was removed, the problem would stop. I was wrong.

Our investigations revealed that AQ Khan had started his activities as far back as 1987 primarily with Iran. In 1994-95, Dr AQ Khan had ordered the manufacture of 200 P-1 centrifuges that had been discarded by Pakistan in the mid 80s.

These had been dispatched to Dubai for onward distribution. Dr Khan was running a very personalised underground network of technology transfers around the world with his base in Dubai.

The irony is that the Dubai-based network had employed several Indians, some of whom have since vanished. There is strong probability that the genesis of the Indian uranium enrichment programme may also have its roots in the Dubai-based network and could be a copy of the Pakistani centrifuge design.

This has also been recently alluded to by an eminent US non-proliferation analyst."

Above quotes manuscript. The article then says, "This is, however, just the manuscript and the final edition that hits the markets could be different. " So he may have multiple versions about A. Q. Khan between his manuscript, his book, 60 minutes, what he told George Tenet of the CIA when confronted with the evidence of Khan's activities in 2003, etc. Is he not a mushy liar? Mush lies we should call them?

The Musharraf Factor : Leading Pakistan to Inevitable Demise (Paperback)
by Abid Ullah Jan (Author)


21st Century Pakistan Sourcebook: President Pervez Musharraf, Devastating Earthquake, Pakistan-India Nuclear Confrontation (Two CD-ROM Set) (CD-ROM)
by U.S. Government

129186 pages. You can't lie consistenly in that many pages. But you can keep people from reading it by the nightly blather.
--------------------------------------------

Persona

General Mahmood Ahmed Director of Pakistan ISI

ISI Pakistan's spy agency

Senator Bob Graham.

search Bob Graham 9-11 Pakistan

Cover-up accusation in 2003 against Bush administration.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/11/205318.shtml


http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121802.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec02/intelligence_12-11.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-graham-admits.htm

"

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States."

...

"SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I do not believe we got the full cooperation that we needed. As an example, as of today there are 13 requests outstanding with the FBI alone for additional information which would help us follow the trail -- including the trail of foreign government involvement."

Colin Powell. Powell was the one assigned to coverup the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, which he did.

"
Six months later, a 21-year-old soldier of the 11th Light Infantry named Tom Glen wrote a letter accusing the Americal Division (and other entire units of the U.S. military, not just individuals) of routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians; the letter was detailed, its allegations horrifying, and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers. Colin Powell, then a young US Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had no knowledge of the events there). Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's refutation would be called an act of "white-washing" the news of My Lai, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public. On May 4, 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, said to Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."[5]

The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour's letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Rep. Morris Udall. Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_lai

The anthrax letters coming just after 9-11 reduced the ability of potential 9-11 whistleblowers in or out of government to send letters to Congress or the media with their concerns. One of the interesting points from Colin Powell's role in trying to cover up My Lai is how important sending letters from low level people in government to Congress is.

After 9-11, the Anthrax letters substantially reduced that form of communication. Anthrax letters were sent to the media and to Congress. This made receivers and thus senders averse to letters. The general view now is that the anthrax letters were likely sent by someone else unconnected with 9-11. So this effect would just be coincidence. We now know there were whistleblowers before and after 9-11 who were trying to be heard. They include Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley of the FBI, Robert Wright of the FBI, and others.

http://www.fbi.gov/short/sacrstate.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_2469.shtml Robert Wright statement that FBI protecting terrorists.

----------------
Joint Inquiry Report

Findings


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence
Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks
of September 2001.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html Senate motion failed to declassify 28 pages of Joint Inquiry report on Oct 28, 2003.


The 28 pages are redacted except for the introduction in the report. Start of this section is:

TOP SECRET
[Page 415]
PART FOUR—FINDING, DISCUSSION AND NARRATIVE REGARDING
CERTAIN SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS
20. Finding: [Through its investigation, the Joint Inquiry developed information
suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. The Joint Inquiry’s review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which has yet to be independently verified, concerning these potential sources of support. In their testimony, neither CIA nor FBI officials were able to address definitively the extent of such support for the hijackers globally or within the United States or the extent to which such support, if it exists, is knowing or inadvertent in nature. Only recently, and at least in part due to the Joint Inquiry’s focus on this issue, did the FBI and CIA strengthen their efforts to address these issues. In the view of the Joint Inquiry, this gap in U.S. intelligence coverage is unacceptable, given the magnitude and immediacy of the potential risk to U.S. national security. The Intelligence Community needs to address this area of concern as aggressively
and as quickly as possible].

Discussion: [The Joint Inquiry reviewed information in FBI and CIA documents
suggesting specific potential sources of foreign support for the September 11 hijackers. While the Joint Inquiry uncovered this material during the course of its review of FBI and CIA documents, it did not attempt to investigate and assess the accuracy and significance of this information independently, recognizing that such a task would be beyond the scope of the Joint [page 416] Inquiry. Instead, the Joint Inquiry referred a detailed compilation of information it had uncovered in documents and interviews to the FBI and CIA for further investigation by the Intelligence Community and, if appropriate, law enforcement agencies. A detailed summary of
the available information pertaining to this issue is included in the classified version of the Joint Inquiry final report].

[It should be clear that this Joint Inquiry has made no final determinations as to the reliability or sufficiency of the information regarding these issues that was found contained in FBI and CIA documents. It was not the task of this Joint Inquiry to conduct the kind of extensive investigation that would be required to determine the true significance of such alleged support to the hijackers. On the one hand, it is possible that these kinds of connections could suggest, as indicated in a CIA memorandum, “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists [---------------------------].” On the other hand, it is also possible that further
TOP SECRET 395
TOP SECRET
investigation of these allegations could reveal legitimate, and innocent, explanations for these associations].
[Given the serious national security implications of this information, however, the
leadership of the Joint Inquiry is referring the Joint Inquiry Staff’s compilation of relevant information to both the FBI and the CIA for investigative review and appropriate investigative and intelligence action].

....end of report section with redacted parts: -----------------

In the October 10, 2002 closed hearing, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that he
became aware of some of the facts regarding this issue only as a result of the investigative work of the Joint Inquiry Staff: I’m saying the sequence of events here, I think the staff probed and, as a result of the probing, some facts came to light here and to me, frankly, that had not come to light before, and perhaps would not have come to light had the staff not probed.

That’s what I’m telling you. So I’m agreeing with you that the staff probing
brought out facts that may not have come to this Committee.

Senator DeWine: But what you’re also saying, though, is that that probing then
brought facts to your attention.

Director Mueller: Yes.
TOP SECRET 422

------------------

search 9-11 report Saudi Arabia "country X"


-----------

9-11 Commission Report


http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/009178.html

...
Cambone notes Sep-11 2001. http://www.tomflocco.com/Docs/Dsn/DodStaffNotes.htm

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/TopSecretNotes.htm



-----------Asia Times "Smoking Gun" Pakistan -------------
The following are very good summaries of the case for Pakistan's involvement in 9-11.

9-11 AND THE SMOKING GUN
Part 1: 'Independent' commission
By Pepe Escobar
April 7, 2004

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD07Aa01.html

This reviews material as of 2004 to show Pakistan was likely involved in 9-11.

9-11 AND THE SMOKING GUN
Part 2: A real smoking gun
By Pepe Escobar
April 8, 2004
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html



http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/12686965.html

...

Misc other sources


Additional 9-11 Staff Report from Feb 10, 2005 on 52 prior warnings to FAA.
http://www.thememoryblog.org/archives/000506.html


http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/911first.html

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pk01.html

http://www.waronfreedom.org/

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html

http://www.stewwebb.com/

http://www.ny911truth.org/articles/9-11_by_the_numbers.htm

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3072

----
Other Articles from Old Atlantic on this topic


    2. Was 9/11 a Pakistan ISI Extortion Plot?

    3. Christina Lambs spots the Pakistan Connection

    4. Do Iran and Pakistan have info on Bush? From the 90's on Clinton?

    5. Bush: Iraq no 9-11 ties, WMD. Pakistan does?

    6. Terrorism Series



This post represents opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

posted by OldAtlantic at 9/23/2006 06:00:00 AM

2 Comments:

Anonymous Orion said...

Now that is what I call a thoroughly researched article. I could win any debate competetion with that material:). Very informative and very nicely researched.

But I loose the crux. What do you intend to say clearly by all this? What's the moolah? And what do we do? Some insights from you.

2:30 AM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger OldAtlantic said...

Good question. First, there is circumstantial evidence consistent with Pakistan having known about 9-11 boferehand, or had some info. The Bush team may have realized this on 9-12 and then decided to go after Iraq because Pakistan was too much, or perhaps because Pakistan knew things about them. A possibility is that Russia used academic komporomat to try to pressure low interest rate IMF loans from Clinton profs Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers. Bush profs knew that and used it to get the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and then to influence the Supreme Court during Bush v. Gore or Gore to go away after the decision.

Pakistan as an IMF member may have heard that. General Ahmed of the ISI may have come before 9-11 and told that to Armitage who signed the 1998 PNAC letter. Armitage may have realized this on 9-12 and then made his threats to Ahmed on that basis. Paul Wolfowitz may have been appointed President of World Bank to keep a lid on this from the public, while governments are paid off.

Even aside from all this, since 9-11, Pakistan has not been trustworthy in the war against terror. They are playing both sides of the street. Most important, Pakistan wants to be nuclear warheads on missiles on subs. Those could be sold to Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or others. This is not a world we want to live in. We have to get Pakistan to denuke. This is more important than Afghanistan or bin Laden or Iraq.

People have to get informed on Pakistan and hold their representatives and the media to explaining this and dealing with it. The media are lazy and also like to sit on private info to get a regular flow of government people on their programs or tidbits. The people have to hold the media to the real issues and pressure them to learn the facts and then ask the questions.

All disclaimers apply to this comment.

6:54 AM, September 27, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home