Revealed: Ashcroft, Tenet, Rumsfeld warned 9/11 Commission about ‘line’ it ’should not cross’

(RawStory) – Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney.

Lees verder bij Drogram

Wie vermoordde Massoud?

Afspeellijst voor deze door de VPRO uitgezonden documentaire

De vrouw die teveel wist

Zadari: Osama Bin Laden opereerde voor de VS

YouTube

In the interview here, NBCs David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an operator for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari believes Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin Laden.

Before everything changed on September 11, 2001, the corporate media published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his relationship with the CIA. As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscows invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar — the MAK — which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war, Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC on August 24, 1998. What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistans state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIAs primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscows occupation.

Zadari: Taliban produkt van CIA en ISI

Lees verder

Pakistan - Het nieuwe doelwit van de zogenaamde "war on terror"

Het is te merken dat de gevestigde media en autoriteiten de laatste tijd steeds meer aandacht besteden aan de situatie in Pakistan. Vandaag meldt het AD bijvoorbeeld dat de Amerikaanse generaal David Petraeus groot alarm heeft geslagen over Pakistan en roept dat het land op instorten staat.

Lees verder bij WACH

Nederland mocht AQ Khan niet arresteren van CIA

Nederland mocht van de CIA de "vader" van de Pakistaans atoombom niet arresteren, aldus Ruud Lubbers.

http://www.wereldomroep.nl/achtergronden/nederl...

Meer achtergrond en context:

http://www.ochtenden.nl/dossiers/25183820/

Clinton: "We Created the Taliban"

Hillary Clinton vanuit Amerikaans standpunt over de creatie van de Taliban.

Lees verder op Dawn.com

Cut CIA’s Footprint In Pakistan

This is not the Cold War era. The role of CIA outposts in Pakistan is becoming disputable now in many areas. While there is no question that both countries need to maintain close intelligence cooperation, the conflicting visions of America’s and Pakistan’s respective national security interests in Afghanistan and the region means that we need to reduce the level of unbridled CIA presence here and roll back some of the concessions that were necessitated by 9/11. In 2002, the Americans were allowed to establish bases in Balochistan and CIA was given the right to recruit Pakistanis in the tribal belt. These two areas of Pakistan are the most disturbed parts of our country seven years later. And now our territory is being used to attack the interests of Iran and China. We don’t have problems with these two nations but the U.S. does. It is also quite clear that Washington is creating conditions across our western belt that would make it impossible for China to pursue trade and energy corridors through Pakistan. The U.S. media alone has created and is sustaining an undeclared war against Pakistan whose intensity varies with the fluctuations of the U.S.-Pakistani ties.

Lees verder bij PakAlert

‘Absurd’ Conspiracy Theories Prevalent in Afghanistan

To many in the Afghan capital, there’s an obvious explanation for the dramatic re-emergence of the Taliban — a force that seemed thoroughly dust-binned after the arrival of the world’s most powerful army seven years ago.

“Now,” as one 23-year-old Kabul shopkeeper, Qand Mohmadi, put it, “we think America is supporting both the Taliban and the Afghan government. That’s what everyone says.”

Indeed, the rumor of U.S. support for the Taliban is virtually ubiquitous in Kabul. And absurd as it might sound after a year in which American and other Western troops suffered record casualties in fighting with insurgents, many Kabul residents say they see at least a kernel of truth in the story.

“We don’t know for sure why they are doing it,” said Daoud Zadran, a middle-aged real estate broker. “Politics is bigger than our thoughts. But maybe America wants to build up the Taliban so they have an excuse to remain in Afghanistan because of the Iranian issue.”

Lees verder bij Cryptogon

Context of '1994-1997: US Supports Taliban Rise to Power'

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event 1994-1997: US Supports Taliban Rise to Power. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

Lees verder bij History Commons

The War on Terror is a Hoax

By Paul Craig Roberts

The “war on terror” is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel’s territorial expansion.

There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until the Americans brought them there by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but a movement attempting to unify Afghanistan under Muslim law. The only Americans threatened by the Taliban are the Americans Bush sent to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and to impose a puppet state on the Afghan people.

Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine, or what little remains of Palestine after Israel’s illegal annexations. Hamas is a terrorist organization in the same sense that the Israeli government and the US government are terrorist organizations. In an effort to bring Hamas under Israeli hegemony, Israel employs terror bombing and assassinations against Palestinians. Hamas replies to the Israeli terror with homemade and ineffectual rockets.

Hezbollah represents the Shi’ites of southern Lebanon, another area in the Middle East that Israel seeks for its territorial expansion.

The US brands Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorist organizations” for no other reason than the US is on Israel’s side of the conflict. There is no objective basis for the US Department of State’s “finding” that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. It is merely a propagandistic declaration.

Lees in zijn geheel op Information Clearing House

Afghan article says US Bin-Ladin hunt phoney

So, the rumour was right: French soldiers trapped Usamah Bin-Ladin, but were not allowed by the Americans to arrest the apparent fugitive leader of Al-Qa`idah. A Bin-Ladin documentary just released by French documentary cinema examines this issue, an issue which has led to heated debate in the French media.

Lees verder bij Juan Cole

Hoe de CIA Osama Bin Laden creëerde

Waarom lees je dit soort stukken, zoals in dit geval bij het Australische Green Left, niet bij de Nederlandse linkse politieke partijen, vraag ik me af?

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980s — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilised primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

Bin Laden only became a “terrorist” in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Lees de cover story van Norm Dixon in zijn geheel bij Green Left.

Belliraj: ik voorkwam aanslag in Den Haag

Abdelkader Belliraj, hoofdverdachte in een Marokkaans terreurnetwerk, zegt een aanslag op het Europol-gebouw in Den Haag te hebben voorkomen, aldus de Telegraaf.

In maart zou hij ook een aanslag in Liverpool hebben verijdeld. Belliraj, die mogelijk op de loonlijst van zowel de Belgische Staatsveiligheid als de CIA staat, werd eerder door de Marokkaanse minister van Binnenlandse Zaken Benmoussa beschuldigd van zes moorden in België.

Ook zou hij banden hebben met de Hofstadgroep. Ondertussen weet de AIVD dit keer van niets....

Die hadden het waarschijnlijk te druk in Iran.

Abu Nidal: terrorist in naam van CIA en Mossad

Robert Fisk, in The Independent, 25 October 2008, tells us about Abu Nidal.

Reportedly, Abu Nidal, was a spy for the USA.

Documents which are now in the hands of The Independent (Abu Nidal, notorious Palestinian mercenary, 'was a US spy'), written by Saddam Hussein's security services, state that Nidal had been "colluding" with the Americans and, with the help of the Egyptians and Kuwaitis, was trying to manufacture evidence linking Saddam and al-Qa'ida. [...]

A former senior Jordanian intelligence officer said: "Scratch around inside Abu Nidal's organization and you will find Mossad." (The Truth Seeker - Abu Nidal - Mossad terrorist)

Backing up these reports was a former member of Abu Nidal's own Justice Committee, who told Seale that Mossad agents captured by Abu Nidal were usually killed very quickly to prevent them from confessing their true motives.

Lees verder op Aangirfan

Vuurgevecht tussen Amerikaanse en Pakistaanse troepen

De werkzaamheden van het Amerikaanse consulaat zijn gestopt, en de oorlog tussen de VS en Pakistan dreigt verder te ontvlammen, nu er openlijk tegen elkaar gevochten wordt.

Lees over de achtergronden het verhaal over de aanslag op het Marriott Hotel.

Spies Warn That “Al CIAqaeda” Aims for October Surprise

Intercepted Messages Asking Local Cells To Be Prepared for Imminent Instructions

Lees verder


Cui Bono?-J.

Mythen en feiten over mensenrechten in Venezuela

On September 18, 2008 Human Rights Watch released a report entitled "Venezuela: Rights Suffer Under Chávez." The report contains biases and inaccuracies, and wrongly purports that human rights guarantees are lacking or not properly enforced in Venezuela. In addition, while criticizing Venezuela's human rights in the political context, it fails to mention the many significant advancements made by the government on other essential human rights, such as access to education, healthcare, nutritious food, clean water, and housing.

Lees verder over de mythen die naar buiten werden gebracht door Human Rights Watch

Venezuela zet "mensenrechtenactivist" uit. Maar niet heus.

Gisteren zette Venezuela Human Rights Watch-directeur José Miguel Vivanco het land uit, wegens "belastering" van de regering. Dit gebeurde na het verschijnen van een HRW-rapport waarin gesproken werd over een "verslechtering van de mensenrechtensituatie" in Venezuela onder Hugo Chavez. Zie o.a. Volkskrant.

Maar wie is José Miguel Vivanco? Om kort te gaan: hij lijkt vooral een neocon-propagandist die per ongeluk bij een mensenrechtenorganisatie terecht is gekomen. Zo verspreidde hij in 2007 ook het propaganda-verhaal dat de commerciële rechtse zender RCTV op zwart gezet zou worden door de Venezolaanse regering:

Pick up a newspaper -- El Universal and El Nacional are two of the biggest -- and the vast majority of the headlines are trying to make the government look bad. Turn on the radio and most of what you will hear is also anti-government. Television now has two state-run channels, but these only counterbalance the rest of the programming that is opposition-controlled. Venezuela has a more oppositional media than we have in the United States.

In fact, if the government carries through on its promise to turn RCTV's broadcast frequency over to the public, for a diverse array of programming, then this move will actually increase freedom of expression in Venezuela - rather than suppressing it, as the media and some opportunistic, ill-informed politicians here have maintained.

Sadly, some human rights officials here have also, without knowing much of the details, jumped on the media and political bandwagon. In a press release this week, José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, said that "The move to shut down RCTV is a serious blow to freedom of expression in Venezuela." (Of course RCTV will not be "shut down," since it can continue to distribute its programs through cable and satellite media).

Om zichzelf in dezelfde week trouwens weer tegen te spreken:

But in an interview the same week Vivanco gave a different view, criticizing "those who claim that the fact that the Chavez government is not renewing the license for RCTV, per se implies a violation of freedom of expression. That is nonsense. . . you are not entitled, as a private company, to get your contract renewed with the government forever." So why is a station that has repeatedly violated the most basic rules of any broadcast license entitled to another 20-year state-sanctioned franchise?Bron

Vivanco en HRW speelden ook een dubieuze rol tijdens de mislukte CIA-coup tegen Hugo Chavez, in april 2002:

José Vivanco is either ignorant of United States law and the true provisions of Venezuela law, or he is being dishonest enough to "play along" with this latest smear campaign against Venezuela and its Bolivarian Constitution and democratically-elected government.

Vivanco and Human Rights Watch - a bureaucrat and an organization that both went AWOL during the April 2002 coup d'etat in Venezuela: HRW, with a cowardice that shall live in infamy, was completely silent on the abuses committed, crossing its fingers, hoping the coup would succeed, until the coup was over - would do better to invest their attention on real human rights abuses in this hemisphere: the tortures in Guantanamo Bay, for example, where the screams of the victims occur today and tonight, but cannot be heard through Jose Vivanco's partisan earplugs.

Instead, Vivanco is in Venezuela today, attacking that country in knowingly false and inflammatory terms for doing nothing more or less than what the host government of Human Rights Watch has wisely done in its own land for more than two centuries. If HRW were doing its job according to its stated mission, it would be supporting the new provisions in Venezuela, and instead using its multi-million dollar budget to call for the use of such time-honored impeachment provisions in the United States to remove the justices that imposed a Court-Appointed torturer to that country's highest office.

Heard or not, the screams continue today from Guantanamo, from Colombia, from the cell of Pacho Cortes in Bolivia, and not to mention from Iraq and so many other torture chambers throughout the world. How low does José Vivanco's cowardice go to further muzzle the sound of those screams by wasting his organization's time and money to create a media show across the Caribbean that only distracts from the real human rights crises in our hemisphere? If anyone should be impeached from a job of arbitor or judge of anything in our América, it is José Miguel Vivanco.Bron

Kennelijk is de wereld van het mensenrechtenactivisme geïnfiltreerd door neocon-tuig en spindoctors. Je zou bijna denken dat er een oorlog wordt voorbereid.