Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kill Gadaffi

Recommended Posts


I do know that we have no national interest in Libya. I do know that we bombed Libya under Reagan, killing his small daughter, and then the guy kind of disappeared for a few decades. If another country bombed our White House, and killed Obama's daughter, how would we feel about that? Who would best be descibed as a "bully" in that case? I guess he stopped killing and torturing or something. All of a sudden, now he is the #1 boogeyman again. Well, with Bin Laden gone, someone has to be.

Our foreign interventionism has done nothing but make us even more enemies around the world. We've done nothing but intervene in small countries for decades now. Again, the last president to buck that trend was JFK, who was not going to go along with the plan for Viet Nam. If we're so worried about standing up against tyranny, and helping revolutions around the world, why haven't we ever stood up to a really powerful, totalitarian nation like China? Why didn't we ever try and invade the Soviet Union? Surely they did more bad things than Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen have combined. Maybe because the Chinese and Soviets were capable of fighting back?

We are not the world's policeman- we are the world's bully. Always ready to bomb and occupy small countries who cannot possibly fight back. Hey, maybe Grenada is piling up "stockpiles" of weapons or something. Maybe Kosovo needs our "assistance" again. I don't know how you can justify our reprehensible actions around the world.

Of course we must do something do spark being attacked, as Gaddafi did to us - bombing the German disco for the purpose of killing Americans.

As with the NATO bombing of Libyan military today for attacking their own civilians who began by peacefully demonstrating, and now have over 10,000 dead, you want to take the NATO bombing out of the context of the revolution that sparked it.

Of course the USA and NATO are just bombing civilians in order to klll innocent people just to get people to hate Americans.

We aren't the BULLY in Libya, Gaddafi is, and he isn't, as Cynthia McKinney says, the legitimate leader of the soverign state, he took over in a coup and he's leaving the leadership of his country under a state of revolution.

And to answer Paul's point about Guatemala Coup of 1954, that was US CIA intervention, and it was Gaddafi who took over in a coup in Libya in 1969, both totally illegal governments that should have been replaced. I wonder what will happen if the revolutions in Africa and Middle East spread to Mexico and South America. Watch out.

You want to take the reality of the situation and make it absurd, you can do that if you want to continue confusing yourself.

Everyone who is against the US support for the rebels must discuss the NATO operations outside the context of the current revolutions going on in that region, and its a big elephant to ignore, but you must if you want to make your point.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How is it that Gaddafi hasn't done anything to us? You don't count the bombing of the German disco to kill Americans, or the bombing of the plane over Lockerbie?

I don't count the Lockerbie bombing for the good and proper reason that the trial of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was a rigged and corrupt farce:

24 May 2011

The Quiet Storm

She is quiet of voice and slight in stature, but to lawyers everywhere she is Supergirl. With a case history that includes overturning miscarriages such as the Guildfour Four and Birmingham Six, she has turned her attention to Scotland’s shame: The Megrahi case. Steven Raeburn reports.


The conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was almost universally derided from the moment it was confirmed, after an uncertain and unconvincing show trial, transparently controlled by the intelligence services of the nations who, as Nelson Mandela said, should not have been permitted to act as complainer, judge and executioner in their own cause. Since then, the Scottish authorities, with the evident complicity of successive UK governments in Westminster, have collaborated to frustrate, delay, thwart and exhaust the efforts of campaigners as diverse as John Pilger, Kate Adie, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, our own Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, the families of the deceased, Noam Chomsky, Robbie the Pict, Tam Dalyell, Christine Grahame, and a practical army of journalists who have satisfied themselves and staked their own reputations on their belief that the conviction is unsound. And now their ranks have been joined quietly and without ceremony by a legal heroine to many, the powerfully unassuming, devastatingly effective and always understated mistress of justice, Gareth Peirce.

Her own landmark cases included the exposure of top-down state corruption that convicted the innocent Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, and her involvement in Pan Am 103 was prompted in part by her learning that the same discredited personnel whose flawed evidence was instrumental in driving those innocents to jail under a juggernaut of deceit, were also the providers of the key flawed evidence in the Megrahi case.

Her intervention adds to factors, including the unprecedented fourth hearing at the Holyrood Petitions committee of evidence in the case, that may yet lead to a heavily resisted, inevitably embarrassing, can-of-worms-openingly necessary inquiry into the entire miserable, seedy affair.

“One of the ways out of ever reopening a case that has gone wrong is to find an avenue where someone or something else can bear responsibility,” Peirce told The Firm.

“For instance, in the case of the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four, where for years and years and years, successive courts of appeal and politicians refused to take on responsibility for reopening it, the excuse was always: ‘a jury looked at this - the jury is the arbiter of fact in our jurisdiction’. And of course it would be very wrong to disturb the verdict of the jury, who saw and heard all the evidence. That was a device that was resorted to year after year to excuse not reopening these cases, even when they screamed out for it. So one way is to hide behind that.

“Observing Lockerbie, there is some of the same. We hear that the High Court judges heard the case and the appeal judges reinforced the decision, and therefore that is how it should stand. There is that excuse for suggesting that the tribunal of fact was in the best position to know. Whereas in each of these cases it is very clear that for one reason or another it wasn’t, and didn’t know half the picture.”

The failings in Scots legal culture to have the ability to correct the stain it created shows either the malleability of the rule of law, or the nefarious will of the civil service and rogue elements of the Crown Office to bully a pliant system that has demonstrably inadequate checks and balances. Perhaps a combination of both is at fault, given the ease with which the emergency Cadder legislation contained a prefabricated sting in the tail that seemed designed to frustrate any future judicial consideration of the case against Megrahi. A case which has crumbled when tested against logic & neutral scrutiny of the available evidence.

The Petitions Committee, in its last hearing prior to the Scottish election, proposed to include the call for an inquiry into the in-tray of the post May 5th assembly. Peirce however does not have full confidence that the will to convene an inquiry at Government level is greater than the will to frustrate one.

“There is an extra factor here. Scotland and England both say the other is the responsible jurisdiction, even when it is very clear that you cannot compartmentalise responsibility for what went wrong,” she says.

“Because you have two countries involved, each is passing the parcel to the other. The letter from the Scottish Government to the petitions committee says that in law, under the Inquiries Act, that Scotland cannot have an inquiry unless it is on a devolved issue, and the criminal justice system would be a devolved issue. But the letter adds that there are international implications, and therefore any inquiry should either be joint with England, or in England.

“There is a lot of truth in that, but as we saw with Megrahi’s return to Libya, Westminster claimed it was all the responsibility of Scotland, leaving Kenny MacAskill out on a limb. Yet, there is Blair busy with Gadaffi, desperately imploring Libya to make an application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. There are layers and layers of deceit here.”

Layers and layers of deceit...

It is that last, self evident truth that many Scottish citizens find quite difficult to come to terms with; the effort required to maintain the fiction of the Crown case, and the active will of the participants to sustain a fragile and fantastic deception. What she and those who have inquired with any rigour into this affair can see clearly, is that the effort and consensual coordination between the Governments of Washington, London, Tripoli and Edinburgh, and their functionaries at successive levels of responsibility from ministerial to Police level, have been engaged with some vigour in precisely that. And it is nothing new, being a reality she first encountered in the 1970s.

“In the most notorious cases, everyone played their part, absolutely everybody,” she says.

“The lawyers who represented the defenders were disastrously inadequate, or worse. Defence experts failed them, police were fabricating evidence as well as extracting false confessions from brutality. Forensic scientists were cooking the books, and judges from start to finish were either turning a very blind eye or actively assisting the prosecution to get convictions and sustain the convictions year after year.

“A big part of the blame lies within those who form the criminal justice system. It looks as if in the prosecution of the Lockerbie case, the defendants met the same fate, even to the extent of the same personnel featuring, in the person of the forensic scientists.”

It must indeed have taken some particular effort to ensure that the principal forensic analyst, Thomas Hayes, employed by the Crown to testify against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was the very same discredited analyst who was proven to have fabricated his evidence in the manufactured case against the Guildford Four. It was he and Alan Feraday who testified that the key forensic evidence, a fragment of circuit board, not only survived the explosion of Pan Am 103 (which global scientific opinion, including the EU explosives consultant John Wyatt concluded was impossible) but left handy traces of clothing connected to a shop in Malta, the owners of which provided the most tenuous and hedged identification that could be conceived, and were later paid in millions of dollars by the US government for their assistance. Or perhaps connivance.

“That was the most shocking revelation to me,” Peirce says.

“Exactly the same forensic scientists who produced the wrongful conviction of Guiseppe Conlon, the Maguire family and of Danny McNamee, and had been stood down for the role they played. Yet here they were.

“Without them, there wouldn’t have been a prosecution, far less a conviction in Lockerbie.

“If you don’t expose it, it will go on and on. What shocked me most was that I thought that all that had been gone through on Guildford and Birmingham, the one thing that had been achieved was that nobody would be convicted again on bad science. But yet in the Lockerbie case, it isn’t just the same bad science, it is the same bad scientists.”

Shame on the Crown to have fooled us once. Shame on us, that we let it happen again, as the saying goes.

In another transparent effort at information management, the Crown Office, in its media promulgations, persists in reiterating that Al Megrahi remains convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity to have taken place on British soil, yet ignores the subsequent referral of the case back to court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, on the basis that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The subsequent manoeuvrings between Westminster, Tripoli, British oil companies and Holyrood have demonstrated that Al Megrahi’s return to Libya, whilst ostensibly a compassionate matter, had far more to do with realpolitik and expediency than anyone concerned is prepared to admit.

Peirce has accumulated an extraordinary reputation for upending convictions that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The real sting in the tale is that the obvious injustice of holding an innocent man in jail has been effectively neutered & replaced with politically convenient ire about his stubborn good health and the manner of his welcome in Libya. However, far from neutralising seekers of the truth in this case, the very evident display of the realities of the geopolitics of convenience has galvanised campaigners, family members and indeed Peirce herself into working to see the ever more flaccid case against Megrahi is overturned.

“It sounds that the conviction has reached that point. The SCCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal, and would not have done that lightly,” she says.

“The reference to the court was made because a miscarriage of justice may have taken place. It would not have done that in a million years of it did not have a significant basis to do so.

“What is really, really regrettable here is that that opportunity, unless it is put into reverse, is just going to sit there. If the families who lost relatives have been cheated of knowing precisely how, why and who, then that is not good for anything or anyone. Al Megrahi went, and the appeal finished, so there is not that momentum to carry it through in the way there would have been if there were someone wrongly convicted and imprisoned, who had the opportunity to air out all the facts.”

The unfolding turmoil in Libya again provided further examples of global realpolitik, as Libya’s emergent leader apparent Abdel Jalil told an enthusiastic world media something they almost universally repeated without any conditionality or qualification; that Colonel Gadaffi was behind the Pan Am 103 atrocity. At the time of publication, neither he nor fellow regime confidante, former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa, have elaborated on those sweeping statements, nor offered the vaguest indication of what sort of evidence or testimony might support such a claim. Scotland’s own Crown Office emerged from a highly choreographed meeting with Koussa and have yet to emit a peep about what was discussed, and are evidently none the richer in terms of useful information. And Koussa left the country not in handcuffs, but aboard an executive jet from an RAF airbase, just as he arrived. If any of this manoeuvring strikes you as suspicious, it may be worth considering the scale and horror of the secret the four governments are taking quite considerable collective effort to avoid revisiting in either a judicial or public forum.

“It may be that because of what happened recently in Libya it may be worth looking at everything in the round,” Peirce says.

“We need an inquiry into how our government was encouraging all these accommodations and alliances with Libya. What was going on? This is much bigger than Lockerbie. What makes our foreign policy tick? Let’s look at the chronology, let’s look at how, for better or worse, the prosecution of he Lockerbie case might fit into that or not.

“Looking at the whole construct, there is going to be a lot of data to be found, that may not be comfortable to find, but we ought to know.”

There are further parallels that align this case with Peirce’s experience in miscarriage cases connected with the modern Irish troubles. The notorious Widgery report into the events of “bloody Sunday” shored up a flawed and fictitious version of events that was sustained and reinforced by successive Governments for a generation and beyond. It was only during 2010 that a lengthier, more honest appraisal resulted in a climbdown, admission of deceit and apology, which ultimately brought credit and respect to David Cameron, the political clock having moved on so far. Events surrounding the Pan Am 103 case are still too current and the deceit still too recent for such a reversal to bring credit upon anyone. Earlier this year for example, the Justice for Megrahi campaign, including noted academic Professor Robert Black QC concluded that then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini had given flawed legal advice to the Scottish Government. It is hardly surprising that none in the Scottish civil service establishment are rushing to participate in exposure of their own culpability. However the Chilcott Inquiry, following the drip feed of revelations about the illegality of the Iraq invasion is precedent for the possibility that effort can be made to secure the truth in a shorter timeframe.

“The recent history in Westminster; all of the advice about the Iraq war, the advice about what constitutes torture, what is complicity in torture, advice about Geneva conventions, Guantanamo detentions - it has all served political expediency and has all been bad. Bad legally bad morally, bad factually," she says.

“We have lost our way, and to some extent deliberately gone the wrong way. There comes a time when you should stop and say ‘This is all wrong and we have to put it right’. The Lockerbie case is screaming out for that. Perhaps the point comes when the embarrassment is greater to do nothing than it is to do something.”

The matter has recently been before the United Nations, and given the lack of resolution in the Megrahi appeal, the European Union may still have an interest and role to play. The UN observer Hans Kochler, who said the manipulated conduct of the trial itself amounted to a criminal offence, could still have a locus to move for an EU level inquiry.

“It is an attractive thought, but I am not sure that wouldn’t lead to further evasion of responsibility,“ Peirce says.

“The will to actually achieve it would be even more blunted from outside. Because of the clear, disastrous mess the Libyan connection has been, it demands self analysis. If there were at both [scottish and English]ends sufficient initiative to say at least let us set up the beginnings of a joint inquiry, in the hands of one completely trusted, completely neutral external examiner, just to look at the nuts and bolts that are there to see, to see if a full scale inquiry should be recommended; if there should, then both countries should able to do that.

“I am quite sure that if anyone had the will to say that Lockerbie and the relationship with Gadaffi has been spectacularly disastrous, perhaps the most disastrous relationship that the UK has had with anyone, for a very, very, very long time, and within its recent history we can see so much has gone awry that has distorted our foreign policy, domestic policy and our judicial integrity, then that is too much and we want to learn something from it, so that it doesn’t repeat itself.”

In the period since the Megrahi conviction was referred back to the High Court, not only have the campaigners - galvanised behind the spearhead of Dr Jim Swire, but comprising many others from across the world - persistently sustained their efforts, but a second generation of the children of those affected by the case have publicly engaged with the efforts to expose the realities of this case, including Al Megrahi’s daughter, Aisha, in whose name her father’s case could theoretically proceed in the event of his death.

“If any case is ever reopened, it is usually down to the absolute dogged stamina of one or two people who wont take no for an answer,” Peirce says.

“And there are people in this case who won’t let go of it, and interestingly, they are the people who are the most well informed, who went through the whole trial at Kamp Zeist and know the detail. They formed their views on data and information, not second hand knowledge. If anything achieves the reopening, it will be that.

“In the past it hasn‘t needed any more people than that to lever an opening into something that seemed shut tight forever. All of this is screaming out for an inquiry. The ingredients that make up the prosecution’s case are really so rotten. They can’t and they shouldn’t sustain the weight of a presumed safe finding. You can see that they are utterly contaminated. They have no integrity.

“The forensic findings lack all the ingredients that should make them safe. The continuity of exhibits is all over the place. The only other pillar on which it is held up is this non-identification. It is just a catastrophe. The whole edifice is rotten, and it is astonishing it was ever stood up in the first place.”

Peirce has pledged to continue to assist the families of the bereaved affected by the Pan Am 103 event and its Orwellian aftermath. Ever modest of her own contribution, not only to this case but the others to which she is associated, it is her own humility that is the overriding emotion that she attaches to her interest in this long lasting stain of shame on the nation.

“I see a terrifying reproduction of other really awful circumstances. It is a pretty exact repetition of injustices that have gone before. I suppose because I can see that, I can see the way the replication is exact down to the same detail, it is my responsibility to at least explain that much,“ she says.

“If the families can use that perspective, then of course that is there for them. I perhaps feel ashamed that I have not done more. I feel very, very badly that I have not contributed more, and want to contribute more from any perspective I have that is constructive and useful.”

And it is her belief, shared by the UK families affected by these events, that it better to know the awful truth, than a palatable falsehood.

“Even in the most terrible cases, there is often always the reaction that you shouldn’t be storing up this terrible thing for the victims or families of those who lost relatives. That happened with the Guildford bombs. However, when the truth finally came out, there wasn’t an outcry from the families at all to say that they would have preferred the miscarriage hadn’t been uncovered.”

Almost twenty three years have passed since the event that charred Lockerbie, with each of them marked by ongoing deceit and sustained resistance from those whose reputations are at risk of foundering once their actions and inactions are exposed. Some have already sought refuge in secure retirement, whilst others have risen to positions of considerable power in the Crown, civil service and Government establishments. Ever steadily, the weight of damaging information increases. The edifice of the conviction secured by malfeasance has long since crumbled, although its remains are still clung on to with desperation by an ever diminishing few. The official vacuum left by the present interregnum cannot be sustained whilst Peirce and others work to get closer to the truth.

History has taught us that the day of truth is coming.

Instead of blowing Libyan women and children to smithereens, the US government could be ensuring its own kids have a roof over their heads, and enough food in their bellies to sleep at night. A Commie-type proposal, no doubt:

Hard times generation: homeless kids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you actually follow the investigation - you learn more than this opinion.

If the plane had exploded over the ocean we would know nothing but speculation.

Because it broke up over Lockerbie, we have what was left, which is quite a lot, as pieces killed people when they fell.

A specialist is quoted saying certain pieces of evidence couldn't have survived the explosion or fall, but some certainly did,

and those are studied to see what could be learned from them.

That's like quoting a specialist who claims it was scientifically impossible for 9/11 passengers and crew to cell phone their families,

which many certainly did.

The evidence of clothing that was wrapped around the bomb was traced directly to a retail store in Malta where Magrahi's passport says

he was at the time of the purchase, and the store clerk identified him as the person who purchased it.

That was just some of the evidence used to convict Magrahi but there was not enough to convict his sidekick, who was let off.

The release of Magrahi by the Scotts was at the request of the Brits, who did so at the urging of Saif Gadhafi,

who dangled oil rights and other incentives that were accepted.

I'm sure Gareth Pierce is a good lawyer, and could probably get Magrahi off if would be as easy to convince you based on an internet op-ed piece,

but the article is dead wrong about the families of the victims believing Magrahi is innocent, though I'm sure some do.

And not only was Magrahi convicted, based on the evidence presented at the trial, Gadhafi and the Libyans agreed to pay off the families of the victims.

Magrahi was part of the Libyan covert op that blew up that plane, but what I can't find any interest in is the possibility that the explosives used

were part of the tons of C4 plastic explosives that Ed Wilson gave to Gaddafi. Wilson was released from prison after a judge was convinced that

he worked for the CIA long after they said he went renegade. And his pal Terpill, he's still running around free too, and was never caught, right?

That's the damning conspiracy, not that Magrahi is innocent. He's not.

Revolutionary Program: Lockerbie Bomber & Saif Celebrate

Also, you are misdirecting your anger at USA for bombing children in Libya, as no US bombs are or have been falling in Libya for over a month now. That would be the UN/NATO coalition that is led by a Canadian general.

Before forming such misguided opinions, maybe you should read more than just internet snipits.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth about 1986 U.S. bombing in Libya - Published: July 4

In his July 3 op-ed, "Should we kill Gaddafi?" Evan Thomas repeatsone of the great canards relating to assassination when he asserts that, in1986, "the United States bombed Gaddafi's tent in Libya, killing some of hisrelatives."

I was a Defense Departmentlegal adviser for the planning of these airstrikes. Col. Moammar Gaddafi neverwas the target for several reasons, not the least of which was because hislocation was uncertain on any given night. Even in 1986, Mr. Gaddafi hadgreater fear of an internal uprising than a U.S. attack. Consequently, he made a decision about 10 o'clock each night as to where he would spend the night.

On the night of the airstrike(April 15), Mr. Gaddafi stayed in his quarters in the fortified (again, againstinternal threats) Tarabulus (Aziziyah) Barracks in Tripoli. Aziziyah Barracks was an airstrike target because it wasthe principal command-and-control center for Mr. Gaddafi's worldwide terroristprogram. The targeted command-and-control center was destroyed. The tentdamaged in the airstrike was used by Mr. Gaddafi for news conferences. He didnot live or sleep in it. His residence, near the command-and-control center,suffered blast damage incidental to bombing the center. Although regimeauthorities claimed Mr. Gaddafi's "adopted daughter" was killed, this proved tobe a fabrication.

W. Hays Parks, Lorton

Assassinationis a two-edged sword


By Evan Thomas, Published: July 1

Is the United States government trying to kill Moammar Gaddafi? Not officially.For the record, the United States issupporting a NATO mission to protect civilians fromGaddafi's forces. NATO jets are bombing Gaddafi's command andcontrol centers. If Gaddafi dies, it may be from a French bomb. But the United States pays more than a fifth of NATO's costsandprovides at least some of the high-tech intelligence used in bombing runs. IfGaddafi is killed in one of those raids, America will have a hard time convincing the world that Gaddafiwas not the target.

President Obama would neverbe so crude as to say "dead or alive," and he has told Congressthat he has no plans to use theAmerican military to assassinate Gaddafi. But by making clear that he wantsregime change and signing off on the NATO strikes, he is, however indirectly,taking on responsibility for attempting to kill a head of state.

That is no small step for anAmerican president. Yet there has been little discussion of assassination inCongress or in the media. There should be more. It is worth looking at thehistory of assassinations and asking whether the president and Congress reallywant the United States tosupport efforts to kill heads of state, even wicked ones such as Gaddafi. Asidefrom the moral questions, assassination invites instability and blowback.

In the West, assassinationwas a fairly common tool in international relations until the late 18thcentury. Then nation-states pulled back. The rules of war recognized that whilestates could make war on each other, heads of state should be protected. In1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, "Assassination, poison, perjury. . . . All of these were legitimateprinciples in the dark ages which intervened between ancient and moderncivilizations, but exploded and [were] held in just horror in the eighteenthcentury." In 1938, the British government rejected a proposal by the Britishmilitary attache in Berlin to assassinate Adolf Hitler on the grounds that it was"unsportsmanlike." As late as 1944, the British government was divided over aplan by the British Special Operations Executive to liquidate the Nazi leader.

As Ward Thomas, a professorat the College of the Holy Cross, writes in "The Ethics of Destruction," thenorm against assassination gradually loosened after World War II. It wasrecognized that heads of state could be terrorists and war criminals — if nothuman monsters. In 1986, after Gaddafi was held responsible for a terroristattack that killed American servicemen in a nightclub in Berlin, the United States bombed Gaddafi's tent in Libya, killing some of his relatives. In the opening blow of the2003 Iraq war, American bombers attempted to kill Saddam Hussein,believing, thanks to faulty intelligence, that he was at a location outside Baghdad. The U.S. executive order banning assassinations, adopted afterearlier CIA plots against Cuba's Fidel Castro and others were exposed in 1975, does notapply in wartime. "The laws of war clearly permit states to use lethal forceagainst the chain of command of military forces who are engaged in armedconflict," says former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith. "But we need to be verycareful how we use that force, to make sure we are not setting a dangerousprecedent."

As was much discussed lastweek, technology such as "smart" bombs and aerial drones allows the United States to zero in on individuals. Drones are effective and, forthe most part, reduce civilian casualties. But they are turning a crude bombinto a sniper's rifle. America is far ahead in the race to build better drones, makingthem small and in the future probably even tiny, like sinister birds andinsects. But other nations (and terrorists) will catch up. I can't helpthinking of that not-so-distant day when they may use such weapons; after all,Gaddafi blew up an American airliner after U.S. warplanes bombed his tent in 1986.

It has never been clearwhether President Dwight Eisenhower gave the CIA thego-ahead to try to assassinate Castro and Congo strongman Patrice Lumumba in 1960. But Ike surely had itright when he scolded a staffer for making a joke about "bumping off" Lumumba."That is beyond the pale," Eisenhower said, according to his staff secretary,Andrew Goodpaster. "We will not discuss such things. Once you start that kindof business, there is no telling where it will end."

Evan Thomas is an author andprofessor of journalism at Princeton University

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...


The US-Al Qaeda Alliance: Bosnia, Kosovo and Now Libya. Washington’s On-Going Collusion with Terrorists

by Prof. Peter Dale Scott

Global Research, July 29, 2011

The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 31 No 1, August 1, 2011

Twice in the last two decades, significant cuts in U.S. and western military spending were foreseen: first after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and then in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. But both times military spending soon increased, and among the factors contributing to the increase were America’s interventions in new areas: the Balkans in the 1990s, and Libya today.1 Hidden from public view in both cases was the extent to which al-Qaeda was a covert U.S. ally in both interventions, rather than its foe.

U.S. interventions in the Balkans and then Libya were presented by the compliant U.S. and allied mainstream media as humanitarian. Indeed, some Washington interventionists may have sincerely believed this. But deeper motivations – from oil to geostrategic priorities – were also at work in both instances.

In virtually all the wars since 1989, America and Islamist factions have been battling to determine who will control the heartlands of Eurasia in the post-Soviet era. In some countries – Somalia in 1993, Afghanistan in 2001 – the conflict has been straightforward, with each side using the other’s excesses as an excuse for intervention.

But there have been other interventions in which Americans have used al-Qaeda as a resource to increase their influence, for example Azerbaijan in 1993. There a pro-Moscow president was ousted after large numbers of Arab and other foreign mujahedin veterans were secretly imported from Afghanistan, on an airline hastily organized by three former veterans of the CIA’s airline Air America. (The three, all once detailed from the Pentagon to the CIA, were Richard Secord, Harry Aderholt, and Ed Dearborn.)2 This was an ad hoc marriage of convenience: the mujahedin got to defend Muslims against Russian influence in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, while the Americans got a new president who opened up the oilfields of Baku to western oil companies.

The pattern of U.S. collaboration with Muslim fundamentalists against more secular enemies is not new. It dates back to at least 1953, when the CIA recruited right-wing mullahs to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadeq in Iran, and also began to cooperate with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.3 But in Libya in 2011 we see a more complex marriage of convenience between US and al-Qaeda elements: one which repeats a pattern seen in Bosnia in 1992-95, and Kosovo in 1997-98. In those countries America responded to a local conflict in the name of a humanitarian intervention to restrain the side committing atrocities. But in all three cases both sides committed atrocities, and American intervention in fact favored the side allied with al-Qaeda.

The cause of intervention was fostered in all three cases by blatant manipulation and falsification of the facts. What a historian has noted of the Bosnian conflict was true also of Kosovo and is being echoed today in Libya: though attacks were “perpetrated by Serbs and Muslims alike,” the pattern in western media was “that killings of Muslims were newsworthy, while the deaths of non-Muslims were not.”4 Reports of mass rapes in the thousands proved to be wildly exaggerated: a French journalist “uncovered only four women willing to back up the story.”5 Meanwhile in 1994 the French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL) traveled to Bosnia and fervently endorsed the case for intervention in Bosnia; in 2011 February BHL traveled to Benghazi and reprised his interventionist role for Libya.6

In all of the countries mentioned above, furthermore, there are signs that some American and/or western intelligence groups were collaborating with al-Qaeda elements from the outset of conflict, before the atrocities cited as a reason for intervention.. This suggests that there were deeper reasons for America’s interventions including the desire of western oil companies to exploit the petroleum reserves of Libya (as in Iraq) without having to deal with a troublesome and powerful strong man, or their desire to create a strategic oil pipeline across the Balkans (in Kosovo).7

That the U.S. would support al-Qaeda in terrorist atrocities runs wholly counter to impressions created by the U.S. media. Yet this on-going unholy alliance resurrects and builds on the alliance underlying Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1978-79 strategy of provocation in Afghanistan, at a time when he was President Carter’s National Security Adviser.

In those years Brzezinski did not hesitate to play the terrorist card against the Soviet Union: he reinforced the efforts of the SAVAK (the Shah of Iran’s intelligence service) to work with the Islamist antecedents of al-Qaeda to destabilize Afghanistan, in a way which soon led to a Soviet invasion of that country.8 At the time, as he later boasted, Brzezinski told Carter, “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.”9

CIA Director William Casey continued this strategy of using terrorists against the USSR in Afghanistan. At first the CIA channeled aid through the Pakistani ISI (Interservices Intelligence Service) to their client Afghan extremists like Gulbeddin Hekmatyar (today one of America’s enemies in Afghanistan). But in 1986, “Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin.”10 CIA aid now reached their support Office of Services in Peshawar, headed by a Palestinian, Abdullah Azzam, and by Osama bin Laden. The al-Kifah Center, a U.S. recruitment office for their so-called Arab-Afghan foreign legion (the future al Qaeda), was set up in the al-Farook mosque in Brooklyn.11

It is important to recall Brzezinski’s and Casey’s use of terrorists today. For in Libya, as earlier in Kosovo and Bosnia, there are alarming signs that America has continued to underwrite Islamist terrorism as a means to dismantle socialist or quasi-socialist nations not previously in its orbit: first the USSR, then Yugoslavia, today Libya. As I have written elsewhere, Gaddafi was using the wealth of Libya, the only Mediterranean nation still armed by Russia and independent of the NATO orbit, to impose more and more difficult terms for western oil companies, and to make the whole of Africa more independent of Europe and America.12

Support for the mujahedin included collusion in law-breaking, at a heavy cost. In the second part of this essay, I will show how government protection of key figures in the Brooklyn al-Kifah Center left some of them free, even after they were known to have committed crimes, to engage in further terrorist acts in the United States -- such as the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

The U.S.-al-Qaeda Alliance in Libya

The NATO intervention in Libya has been presented as a humanitarian campaign. But it is not: both factions have been committing atrocities. Thanks in part to the efforts of the well-connected p.r. firm the Harbour Group, working on behalf of the Benghazi opposition’s National Transitional Council [NTC], Americans have heard many more press accounts of atrocities by pro-Gaddafi forces in Libya than by the Benghazi opposition.13 But in fact, as the London Daily Telegraph reported,

Under rebel control, Benghazi residents are terrorized, many "too frightened to drive through the dark streets at night, fearing a shakedown or worse at the proliferating checkpoints."

Moreover, about 1.5 million black African migrant workers feel trapped under suspicion of supporting the wrong side. Numbers of them have been attacked, some hunted down, dragged from apartments, beaten and killed. So-called "revolutionaries" and "freedom fighters" are, in fact, rampaging gunmen committing atrocities airbrushed from mainstream reports, unwilling to reveal the new Libya if Gaddafi is deposed.14

Thomas Mountain concurs that “Since the rebellion in Benghazi broke out several hundred Sudanese, Somali, Ethiopian and Eritrean guest workers have been robbed and murdered by racist rebel militias, a fact well hidden by the international media.”15 Such reports have continued. Recently, Human Rights Watch accused the rebels of killing Gaddafi supporters who were just civilians and looting, burning and ransacking pro-Gaddafi supporters' houses and areas.16

Americans and Europeans are still less likely to learn from their media that among the groups in the Benghazi transitional coalition, certainly the most battle-seasoned, are veterans of the Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG). The importance of the LIFG contingent in the TNC has been downplayed in a recent issue of the International Business Times:

The LIFG is a radical Islamic group which has been fighting small scale guerrilla warfare against Gaddafi for almost a decade. Much of the LIFG leadership came from soldiers who fought against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan, as part of the Mujahedeen. Since the beginning of the uprising reports said that some of the LIFG has joined the TNC rebel movement on the ground, and many accused the fighters of having links to Al-Qaeda, which the LIFG has since denied.

Previously however, the LIFG had stated that its ultimate goal is to install an Islamic state inside Libya, which given the fact that many of its fighters are now on the side of the TNC is quite worrying. However as the LIFG is reported to have a fighting force of no more than a few thousand men, it is believed it will not be able to cause much trouble within the opposition.17

It remains to be seen whether a victorious TNC would be able to contain the Islamist aspirations of the ruthless jihadist veterans in their ranks.

There are those who fear that, from their years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, the battle-hardened LIFG, although probably not dominant in the Benghazi coalition today, will come to enjoy more influence if Benghazi ever gets to distribute the spoils of victory. In February 2004, then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that "one of the most immediate threats [to U.S. security in Iraq] is from smaller international Sunni extremist groups that have benefited from al-Qaida links. They include ... the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group."18 In 2007 a West Point study reported on “the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007."19

Although Britain and the US were well aware of the West Point assessment of the hard-core LIFG in the Benghazi TNC coalition, their special forces nevertheless secretly backed the Benghazi TNC, even before the launch of NATO air support:

The bombing of the country came as it was revealed that hundreds of British special forces troops have been deployed deep inside Libya targeting Colonel Gaddafi’s forces – and more are on standby….

In total it is understood that just under 250 UK special forces soldiers and their support have been in Libya since before the launch of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone against Gaddafi’s forces.20

There are also reports that U.S. Special Forces were also sent into Libya on February 23 and 24, 2011, almost a month before the commencement of NATO bombing.21

UK support for the fundamentalist LIFG was in fact at least a decade old:

Fierce clashes between [Qadhafi's] security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi's government "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declaring its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." This and future LIFG communiqués were issued by Libyan Afghans who had been granted political asylum in Britain.... The involvement of the British government in the LIFG campaign against Qadhafi remains the subject of immense controversy. LIFG's next big operation, a failed attempt to assassinate Qadhafi in February 1996 that killed several of his bodyguards, was later said to have been financed by British intelligence to the tune of $160,000, according to ex-MI5 officer David Shayler.22

David Shayler’s detailed account has been challenged, but many other sources reveal that UK support for Libyan jihadists long antedates the present conflict.23

Even more ominous for the future than the nationalistic LIFG may be the fighters from the more internationalist Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) who have seized the opportunity presented by the war to enter the conflict, and equip themselves from Gaddafi’s looted armories.24 AQIM presents a special concern because of recent reports that, like other al Qaeda associates from Afghanistan to Kosovo, it is increasingly financed by payoffs from regional drug traffickers.25

In short, the NATO campaign in Libya is in support of a coalition in which the future status of present and former al-Qaeda allies is likely to be strengthened.26 And western forces have been secretly supporting them from the outset.

The U.S.-al-Qaeda Alliance in Bosnia

Similarly, Clinton’s interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were presented as humanitarian. But both sides had committed atrocities in those conflicts; Like the western media, Washington downplayed the Muslim atrocities because of its other interests.

Most Americans are aware that Clinton dispatched U.S. forces to Bosnia to enforce the Dayton peace accords after a well-publicized Serbian atrocity: the massacre of thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica. Thanks to a vigorous campaign by the p.r. firm Ruder Finn, Americans heard a great deal about the Srebrenica massacre, but far less about the beheadings and other atrocities by Muslims that preceded and helped account for it.

A major reason for the Serb attack on Srebrenica was to deal with the armed attacks mounted from that base on nearby villages: “intelligence sources said it was that harassment which precipitated the Serb attack on the 1,500 Muslim defenders inside the enclave.”27 General Philippe Morillon, commander of the UN troops in Bosnia from 1992 to 1993, testified to the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) that Muslim forces based in Srebrenica had “engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region”28 According to Prof. John Schindler,

Between May and December 1992, Muslim forces repeatedly attacked Serb villages around Srebrenica, killing and torturing civilians; some were mutilated and burned alive. Even pro-Sarajevo accounts concede that Muslim forces in Srebrenica…murdered over 1,300 Serbs…and had “ethnically cleansed a vast area.29

Former U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith later admitted in an interview that the U.S. administration was aware of “small numbers of atrocities” being committed by the foreign mujahedin in Bosnia, but dismissed the atrocities as “in the scheme of things not a big issue.”30

Other sources reveal that Washington gave a tacit green light to Croatia’s arming and augmentation of the Muslim presence in Srebrenica.31 Soon C-130 Hercules planes. some but not all of them Iranian, were dropping arms to the Muslims, in violation of the international arms embargo which the U.S. officially respected. More Arab-Afghan mujahedin arrived as well. Many of the airdrops and some of the mujahedin were at Tuzla, 70 kilometers from Srebrenica.32

According to The Spectator (London), the Pentagon was using other countries such as Turkey and Iran in this flow of arms and warriors:

From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon assisted with the movement of thousands of Mujahideen and other Islamic elements from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs. …. As part of the Dutch government’s inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, Professor Cees Wiebes of Amsterdam University compiled a report entitled ‘Intelligence and the War in Bosnia’, published in April 2002. In it he details the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamic groups from the Middle East, and their efforts to assist Bosnia’s Muslims. By 1993, there was a vast amount of weapons-smuggling through Croatia to the Muslims, organised by ‘clandestine agencies’ of the USA, Turkey and Iran, in association with a range of Islamic groups that included Afghan Mujahideen and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Arms bought by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia were airlifted from the Middle East to Bosnia — airlifts with which, Wiebes points out, the USA was ‘very closely involved’.33

Cees Wiebes’ detailed account, based on years of research, documents both the case for American responsibility and the vigorous American denials of it:

At 17.45 on 10 February 1995, the Norwegian Captain Ivan Moldestad, a Norwegian helicopter detachment (NorAir) pilot, stood in the doorway of his temporary accommodation just outside Tuzla. It was dark, and suddenly he heard the sound of the propellers of an approaching transport aircraft; it was unmistakably a four engine Hercules C-130. Moldestad noticed that the Hercules was being escorted by two jet fighters, but could not tell their precise type in the darkness. There were other sightings of this secretive night-time flight to Tuzla Air Base (TAB). A sentry who was on guard duty outside the Norwegian medical UN unit in Tuzla also heard and saw the lights of the Hercules and the accompanying jet fighters. Other UN observers, making use of night vision equipment, also saw the cargo aircraft and the fighter planes concerned. The reports were immediately forwarded to the NATO Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in Vicenza and the UNPF Deny Flight Cell in Naples. When Moldestad phoned Vicenza, he was told that there was nothing in the air that night, and that he must be mistaken. When Moldestad persisted, the connection was broken.

The secretive C-130 cargo aircraft flights and night-time arms drops on Tuzla caused great agitation within UNPROFOR and the international community in February and March 1995. When asked, a British general responded with great certainty to the question of the origin of the secret supplies via TAB: ‘They were American arms deliveries. No doubt about that. And American private companies were involved in these deliveries.’ This was no surprising answer, because this general had access to intelligence gathered by a unit of the British Special Air Services (SAS) in Tuzla. The aircraft had come within range of this unit’s special night vision equipment, and the British saw them land. It was a confirmation that a clandestine American operation had taken place in which arms, ammunition and military communication equipment were supplied to the ABiH. These night-time operations led to much consternation within the UN and NATO, and were the subject of countless speculations.34

Wiebes reports the possibility that the C-130s, some of which were said to have taken off from a US Air Force base in Germany, were actually controlled by Turkish authorities.35 But U.S. involvement was detected in the elaborate cover-up, from the fact that US AWACS aircraft, which should have provided a record of the secret flights, were either withdrawn from duty at the relevant times, or manned with US crews.36

A summary of Wiebes’ exhaustive report was published in the Guardian:

The Dutch report reveals how the Pentagon formed a secret alliance with Islamist groups in an Iran-Contra-style operation.

US, Turkish and Iranian intelligence groups worked with the Islamists in what the Dutch report calls the "Croatian pipeline". Arms bought by Iran and Turkey and financed by Saudi Arabia were flown into Croatia initially by the official Iranian airline, Iran Air, and later in a fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft.

The report says that mojahedin fighters were also flown in, and that the US was "very closely involved" in the operation which was in flagrant breach of the embargo. British secret services obtained documents proving that Iran also arranged deliveries of arms directly to Bosnia, it says.

The operation was promoted by the Pentagon, rather than the CIA, which was cautious about using Islamist groups as a conduit for arms, and about breaching the embargo. When the CIA tried to place its own people on the ground in Bosnia, the agents were threatened by the mojahedin fighters and the Iranians who were training them.

The UN relied on American intelligence to monitor the embargo, a dependency which allowed Washington to manipulate it at will.37

Meanwhile the Al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, which in the 1980s had supported the “Arab-Afghans” fighting in Afghanistan, turned its attentions to Bosnia.

Al-Kifah’s English-language newsletter Al-Hussam (The Sword) also began publishing regular updates on jihad action in Bosnia….Under the control of the minions of Shaykh Omar Abdel Rahman, the newsletter aggressively incited sympathetic Muslims to join the jihad in Bosnia and Afghanistan themselves….The Al-Kifah Bosnian branch office in Zagreb, Croatia, housed in a modern, two-story building, was evidently in close communication with the organizational headquarters in New York. The deputy director of the Zagreb office, Hassan Hakim, admitted to receiving all orders and funding directly from the main United States office of Al-Kifah on Atlantic Avenue controlled by Shaykh Omar Abdel Rahman.38

One of the trainers at al-Kifah, Rodney Hampton-El, assisted in this support program, recruiting warriors from U.S. Army bases like Fort Belvoir, and also training them to be fighters in New Jersey.39 In 1995 Hampton-El was tried and convicted for his role (along with al-Kifah leader Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman) in the plot to blow up New York landmarks. At the trial Hampton-El testified how he was personally given thousands of dollars for this project by Saudi Crown Prince Faisal in the Washington Saudi Embassy.40

About this time, Ayman al-Zawahiri, today the leader of al Qaeda, came to America to raise funds in Silicon Valley, where he was hosted by Ali Mohamed, a U.S. double agent and veteran of U.S. Army Special Forces who had been the top trainer at the Al-Kifah mosque.41 Almost certainly al-Zawahiri’s fund-raising was in support of the mujahedin in Bosnia, reportedly his chief concern at the time. (“The Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal reported that, in 1993, Mr. bin Laden had appointed Sheik Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda's second-in-command, to direct his operations in the Balkans.”)42

Wiebes’ detailed report and the news stories based on it corroborated earlier charges made in 1997 by Sir Alfred Sherman, top adviser to Margaret Thatcher and co-founder of the influential rightwing nationalist Centre for Policy Studies, that “The U.S. encouraged and facilitated the dispatch of arms to the Moslems via Iran and Eastern Europe -- a fact which was denied in Washington at the time in face of overwhelming evidence.”43 This was part of his case that

The war in Bosnia was America's war in every sense of the word. The US administration helped start it, kept it going, and prevented its early end. Indeed all the indications are that it intends to continue the war in the near future, as soon as its Moslem proteges are fully armed and trained.

Specifically, Sherman charged that in 1992 Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger had instructed Warren Zimmerman, U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade, to persuade Bosnian President Izetbegovic to renege on his agreement to preserve Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian unity, and instead accept American aid for an independent Bosnian state.44

The U.S.-al-Qaeda Alliance in Kosovo

This raises the disturbing question: were some Americans willing to ignore the atrocities of the al-Kifah mujahideen in Bosnia in exchange for mujahideen assistance in NATO’s successive wars dismantling Yugoslavia, the last surviving socialist republic in Europe? One thing is clear: Sir Alfred Sherman’s prediction in 1997 that America “intends to continue the war in the near future” soon proved accurate, when in 1999 American support for al-Qaeda’s allies in Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), led to a controversial NATO bombing campaign.

As was widely reported at the time, the KLA was supported both by the networks of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, and also by the traffic in Afghan heroin:

Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden -- who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans.45

According to former DEA agent Michael Levine, the decision of Clinton to back the KLA dismayed his DEA contacts who knew it to be a major drug-trafficking organization.46 As Ralf Mutschke of Interpol testified to Congress,

In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden. Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Djihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. [This is almost certainly Zaiman or Mohammed al-Zawahiri, one of the brothers of Ayman al-Zawahiri.] In 1998, the KLA was described as a key player in the drugs for arms business in 1998, "helping to transport 2 billion USD worth of drugs annually into Western Europe". The KLA and other Albanian groups seem to utilize a sophisticated network of accounts and companies to process funds. In 1998, Germany froze two bank accounts belonging to the "United Kosova" organization after it had been discovered that several hundred thousand dollars had been deposited into those accounts by a convicted Kosovar Albanian drug trafficker.47

According to the London Sunday Times, the KLA’s background did not deter the US from training and strengthening it:

American intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before Nato's bombing of Yugoslavia. The disclosure angered some European diplomats, who said this had undermined moves for a political solution to the conflict between Serbs and Albanians. Central Intelligence Agency officers were ceasefire monitors in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, developing ties with the KLA and giving American military training manuals and field advice on fighting the Yugoslav army and Serbian police.

When the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which co-ordinated the monitoring, left Kosovo a week before airstrikes began a year ago, many of its satellite telephones and global positioning systems were secretly handed to the KLA, ensuring that guerrilla commanders could stay in touch with Nato and Washington. Several KLA leaders had the mobile phone number of General Wesley Clark, the Nato commander.48

According to former U.S. Army Captain David Hackworth, later Newsweek's contributing editor for defense, former US military officers in the private U.S. military contractor MPRI (Military Professional Resources Incorporated) not only trained KLA personnel, but even fought alongside them.49 This reinforced earlier reports that MPRI personnel had also been involved in training Croatians at the time of the illicit Croatian arms pipeline to Bosnia.50

After Kosovo, Sherman repeated his warnings against “expanding American hegemony”, exercised through NATO with varying degrees of partnership and subordination of other players. …. The process commenced with the deliberate break-up of Yugoslavia, led by Germany and acquiesced in by the other European Union members and the United States (1991). It progressed with sanctions against Serbia for attempting to help the western Serbs (1992). In Bosnia America's early involvement sparked off civil war (the Zimmerman Visit to Izetbegovic, in the aftermath of the Lisbon Agreement), and it eventually matured into the bombing campaign of 1999 and the occupation of Kosovo.51

Others suspected that America’s involvement was motivated by its desire to see a new Trans-Balkan pipeline and a new U.S. military base in the Balkans to defend it. Although such critics were initially ridiculed, both predictions soon proved true. The U.S.-registered AMBO corporation, headed by former BP executive Ted Ferguson, began construction of a pipeline from Albania to Macedonia in 2007.52 And nearby is a semi-permanent U.S. Army base, Camp Bondsteel, that can hold up to 7000 soldiers.

In 2007, President George W. Bush created a new United States Africa Command, U.S. AFRICOM. But its HQ at present is in Stuttgart, Germany. This has led to speculation on the Internet that America has its eyes on Libya’s international airport, which the U.S. Air Force had operated as Wheelus Air Force Base until its ouster in 1970.

II. From the First WTC Bombing to 9/11: The Domestic U.S. Fallout from Collusion with Terrorists

The fact that Americans have had repeated recourse to al-Qaeda Islamists as assets in their expansive projects does not constitute proof that there is any long-term systematic strategy to do so, still less that there is a secret alliance.

I believe rather that America is suffering from a malignant condition of military power run amok – power which, like a malignant cancer, tends to reproduce itself at times in ways counterproductive to larger goals. Those who are appointed to manage this vast power become inured to using any available assets, in order to sustain a sociodynamic of global intervention that they are, ironically, powerless to challenge or turn around. The few dissenters who try to do so are predictably sidelined or even ejected from the heights of power, as not being “on the team.”

Those in Washington who decided to assist terrorists and drug traffickers seem not to have considered such “externalities” as the domestic consequences from official dealings with criminal terrorist networks that are global in scope. Yet the consequences were and are real, for the Islamist terrorists that were protected by the US in their subversion of order in Kosovo and other countries were soon being protected inside the US as well. As former DEA agent Michael Levine reported of the KLA-linked drug networks, “These guys have a network that's active on the streets of this country.... They're the worst elements of society that you can imagine, and now, according to my sources in drug enforcement, they're politically protected.”53

In other words, Kosovars were now enjoying the de facto protection in their U.S. drug trafficking that had earlier been enjoyed by the CIA’s Chinese, Cuban, Italian, Thai, and other ethnic assets dating from the 1940s.54

Mother Jones reported in 2000, after the NATO bombing in support of the KLA that Afghan heroin, much of it distributed by Kosovar Albanians, now accounted for almost 20 percent of the heroin seized in America -- nearly double the percentage taken four years earlier.55 Meanwhile in Europe, it was estimated that “Kosovo Albanians control 40% of Europe's heroin.”56 In addition there is a near universal consensus that the outcome of the war in Bosnia left al-Qaeda’s jihadists much more strongly entrenched in the Balkans than they had been earlier. In the words of Professor John Schindler, Bosnia, “the most pro-Western society in the umma [Muslim world],” was “converted into a Jihadistan through domestic deceit, violent conflict, and misguided international intervention.”57

It is too soon to predict with confidence what will be the domestic fallout or “blowback” from NATO’s empowerment of Islamists by creating chaos in Libya. But the domestic consequences of similar U.S. interventions in the past are indisputable, and have contributed to major acts of terrorism in this country.

American protection for the Al-Kifah mujahedin support base in Brooklyn led to interference in domestic U.S. law enforcement. This enabled mujahedin recruits at al-Kifah to plot and/or engage in a number of domestic and foreign terrorist attacks on America. These attacks include the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the so-called “New York landmarks plot” of 1995, and the Embassy attacks of 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania. Involved in all of these events were terrorists who should have been rounded up earlier because of crimes already committed, but were allowed to stay free.

Central to all of these attacks was the role of Ali Mohamed, the former U.S. Special Forces double agent at al-Kifah, and his trainees. Ali Mohamed, despite being on a State Department Watch List, had come to America around 1984, on what an FBI consultant has called “a visa program controlled by the CIA.”58 So did the “blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, the leader of al-Kifah; Rahman was issued two visas, one of them “by a CIA officer working undercover in the consular section of the American embassy in Sudan.”59

Ali Mohamed trained al-Kifah recruits in guerrilla tactics near Brooklyn. This operation was considered so sensitive that the New York police and the FBI later protected two of the recruits from arrest, when they murdered the Jewish extremist Meir Kahane. Instead, the New York Police called the third assassin (El Sayyid Nosair) a “lone deranged gunman,” and released the other two (Mahmoud Abouhalima and Mohammed Salameh) from detention. This enabled Abouhalima and Salameh, along with another Ali Mohamed trainee (Nidal Ayyad) to take part three years later in the first (1993) bombing of the World Trade Center.60

Prosecutors protected Ali Mohamed again in the 1994-95 “Landmarks” trial, when Omar Abdul Rahman and some of Mohamed’s trainees were convicted of conspiring to blow up New York buildings. In that case the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, named Ali Mohamed as an unindicted co-conspirator, yet allowed him to remain free. When the defense issued a subpoena for Mohamed to appear in court, the prosecutor intervened to avoid Mohamed’s having to testify.61

Ali Mohamed was well aware of his protected status, and used it in early 1993 to obtain his release when detained by the RCMP at Vancouver Airport. As this episode has so ignored in the US press, I will quote the account of it in Canada’s premier newspaper, the Toronto Globe and Mail:

The RCMP had their hands on one of the key insiders of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network, but he was released after he had Mounties call his handler at the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Ali Mohamed, a Californian of Egyptian origin who is believed to be the highest ranking al-Qaeda member to have landed in Canada, was working with U.S. counterterrorist agents, playing a double or triple game, when he was questioned in 1993. Mr. Mohamed now is in a U.S. prison.

"The people of the RCMP told me by midnight that I can go now," Mr. Mohamed — who confessed in the United States to being a close bin Laden associate — wrote at the time in an affidavit shown Wednesday to The Globe and Mail.

The incident happened after customs agents at Vancouver International Airport detained Essam Marzouk, an Egyptian who had arrived from Damascus via Frankfurt, after they found him carrying two forged Saudi passports.

Mr. Mohamed, who was waiting to pick him up at the airport, inquired of the police about his friend's detention. That made the RCMP curious about Mr. Mohamed, but he dispelled their suspicions by telling them he was a collaborator with the FBI.62

The Globe and Mail story makes it clear that in 1993 Mohamed already had a handler at the FBI, to whom the RCMP deferred. Patrick Fitzgerald, in his statement to the 9/11 Commission, gave a quite different story: that Mohamed, after returning from Nairobi in 1994, applied for a job “as an FBI translator.”63 The difference is vital: because the FBI told the RCMP to release Mohamed, he was then able to travel to Nairobi and plan for bombing the U.S. Embassy there.

According to author Peter Lance, by 2007 Fitzgerald had enough evidence to arrest and indict Mohamed, but did not. Instead he interviewed Mohamed in California, along with an FBI agent, Jack Cloonan. After the interview Fitzgerald chose not to arrest Mohamed, but instead to tap his phone and bug his computer. Lance asks a very relevant question: did Fitzgerald fear that ”any indictment of al Qaeda’s chief spy would rip the lid off years of gross negligence by three of America’s top intelligence agencies”?64

One month after the Embassy bombings, Ali Mohamed was finally arrested, on September 10, 1998. Yet when Fitzgerald handed down thirteen indictments two months later, Mohamed’s name was not among them. Instead Fitzgerald again allowed him to avoid cross-examination in court by accepting a plea bargain, the terms of which are still partly unknown. Specifically we do not know the term of Mohamed’s sentence: that page of his court appearance transcript (p. 17) is filed under seal.65

As part of the plea bargain, Mohamed told the court that at the personal request of bin Laden, he did surveillance on the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, “took pictures, drew diagrams, and wrote a report” which he personally delivered to bin Laden in the Sudan.66 Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor who negotiated the plea bargain, testified at length about Mohamed to the 9/11 Commission, who concluded in their Report (p. 68) that Mohamed “led” the embassy bombing operation. Ironically, the Embassy bombing is the official reason today why Zawahiri (like bin Laden before him) is wanted by the FBI, with a $25 million bounty on his head.

But the American public has been denied the right to learn about Ali Mohamed’s involvement in other terrorist events. Particularly relevant would be his involvement in 9/11. As his FBI handler Cloonan later reported, Mohamed explained to him that he personally trained the accused hijackers in how to seize planes:

He [had] conducted training for al Qaeda on how to hijack a plane. He ran practical exercises in Pakistan and he said, “This is how you get a box cutter on board. You take the knife, you remove the blade and you wrap it in [word blacked out] and put it in your carry-on luggage.” They’d read the FAA regulations. They knew four inches wouldn’t go through. “This is how you position yourself,” he said. “I taught people how to sit in first class. You sit here and some sit here.” He wrote the whole thing out.67


At present America is in the midst of an unprecedented budget crisis, brought on in large part by its multiple wars. Nevertheless it is also on the point of several further interventions: in Yemen, Somalia, possibly Syria or Iran (where the CIA is said to be in contact with the drug-trafficking al-Qaeda offshoot Jundallah),68 and most assuredly in Libya.

Only the American public can stop them. But in order for the people to rise up and cry Stop! there must first be a better understanding of the dark alliances underlying America’s alleged humanitarian interventions.

This awareness may increase when Americans finally realize that there is domestic blowback from assisting terrorists as well. The long elaborate dance between Mohamed and his Justice Department overseers makes it clear that the handling of terrorists for corrupt purposes corrupts the handlers as well as the terrorists. Eventually both the handlers and the handled become in effect co-conspirators, with secrets about their collusion both parties need to conceal.

Until the public takes notice, that concealment of collusion will continue. And as long as it continues, we will continue to be denied the truth about what collusions underlay 9/11.

Worse, we are likely to see more terrorist attacks, at home as well as abroad, along with more illegal, costly, and unnecessary wars.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.

Peter Dale Scott is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)


1 Cf. Telegraph (London), “Defence Cuts in Doubt over Libya, Says Military Adviser,“ April 7, 2011, “The Libyan crisis has raised doubts about the Coalition’s defence review and could force ministers to reverse cuts including the scrapping of Britain’s Harrier jump jets, a senior military adviser has said,” (link).

2 Scott, The Road to 9/11, 163-65.

3 Scott, The Road to 9/11, 44-45; citing Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game, 109-11; Saïd Aburish, A Brutal Friendship, 60-61; Miles Copeland, The Game Player, 149-54. Cf. Ian Johnson, “Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood,” New York Review of Books, February 5, 2011.

4 John R. Schindler, Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad, 71, 81. According to Schindler, “CNN repeatedly showed images of ‘dead Muslims’ killed by Serbs that were actually Serbs murdered by Muslims” (92).

5 Schindler, Unholy Terror, 91.

6 Schindler, Unholy Terror, 179-80; Christian Science Monitor, March 28, 2011. In 1994 BHL presented Bosnian leader Izetbegovich to French President Mitterand; in 2011 BHL arranged for three Benghazi leaders to meet French President Sarkozy. Cf. “Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu,” Radio France Internationale, June 2, 2011, “Libya’s rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) is ready to recognise Israel, according to French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who says he has passed the message on to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” (link).

7 For Big Oil’s complaints with Gaddafi, see Peter Dale Scott, "The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System", Asian-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, April 27, 2011.

8 Scott, Road to 9/11, 77; citing Diego Cordovez and Selig S. Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal (New York: Oxford University Press, 16), 16.

9 Scott, Road to 9/11, 72-75; quoting from "Les Révélations d'un Ancien Conseilleur de Carter: ‘Oui, la CIA est Entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes...’" Le Nouvel Observateur [Paris], January 15-21, 1998: “B[rzezinski]: [On Jul 3, 1979] 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.… Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

10 Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, 129. According to the Spanish author Robert Montoya, the idea originated in the elite Safari Club that had been created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches in 1976, bringing together other intelligence chiefs such as General Akhtar Abdur Rahman of ISI in Pakistan and Kamal Adham of Saudi Arabia (Roberto Montoya, El Mundo [Madrid], February 16, 2003).

11 Scott, Road to 9/11, 139-40; citing Steven Emerson, American Jihad, 131-32.

12 Peter Dale Scott, "The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System", Asian-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, April 27, 2011.

13 “PR firm helps Libyan rebels to campaign for support from US,” The Hill.com, April 12, 2011.

14 Rob Crilly, Daily Telegraph (London), March 23, 2011; quoted in Stephen Lendman, “Planned Regime Change in Libya,” SteveLendmanBlog, March 28, 2011. Cf. Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011.

15 Morris Herman, “Rebel Militias Include the Human Traffickers of Benghazi,” Foreign Policy Journal, July 28, 2011, quoting Thomas C. Mountain.

16 Anissa Haddadi, “Does the Transitional Council Really Represent Libyan Democracy and Opposition to Gaddafi?” International Business Times, July 20, 2011.

17 Haddadi, “Does the Transitional Council Really Represent Libyan Democracy and Opposition to Gaddafi?” International Business Times, July 20, 2011.

18 Center for Defense Information, “In the Spotlight: The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG),” January 18, 2005. That the LIFG is pursuing its own goals may explain the rebel seizure of anti-air force missiles from captured Gaddafi armories: these missiles, useless against Gaddafi (who no longer has an air force) are apparently being shipped out of Libya for sale or use elsewhere (New York Times, July 15, 2011).

19 December 2007 West Point Study, quoted in Webster Tarpley, “The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq,” Tarpley.net, March 24, 2011.

20 Daily Mail (London), March 25, 2001, link; cited in Lendman; “Planned Regime Change in Libya.”

21 Akhtar Jamal, “US UK, French forces land in Libya,” Pakistan Observer, February 2011.

22 Gary Gambill, "The Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Jamestown Foundation," Terrorism Monitor, May 5, 2005; citing Al-Hayat (London), 20 October 1995 [“communiqué”]; "The Shayler affair: The spooks, the Colonel and the jailed whistle-blower," The Observer (London), 9 August 1998; Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, Ben Laden: La Verite interdite (Bin Ladin: The Forbidden Truth). Cf. also Annie Machon, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 And the Shayler Affair (Book Guild Publishing, 2005) [shayler].

23 E.g. Washington Post, October 7, 2001: “Over the years, some dissidents suspected by foreign governments of involvement in terrorist acts have been protected by the British government for one reason or another from deportation or extradition.... In the past, terrorism experts say, Britain benefited significantly from its willingness to extend at least conditional hospitality to a wide range of Arab dissidents and opposition figures .... Mustafa Alani, a terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies, a London think tank, said [Anas] al-Liby was probably left in legal limbo by the British government, allowing him to be used or discarded as circumstances permitted.”

24 “Sahelian Concern Deepens over Libya, AQIM,” Sahel Blog, May 2, 2011. According to the Los Angeles Times, AQIM vowed on February 24, 2011 to “do whatever we can” to help the rebel cause. (Ken Dilanian, “US Finds no Firm Al Qaeda Presence in Libya Rebellion,” Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011). Cf. “Libya rebels not anti-West, but Qaeda a worry-group,” Reuters, March 29, 2011; “The Evolving Threat of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” Strategic Forum, National Defense University; CNN World, February 25, 2011.

25 Andre Lesage, “The Evolving Threat of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” Strategic Forum, National Defense University; CNN World, February 25, 2011, 6. Cf. “Rogue planes flying drugs across Atlantic; Al-Qaeda Links;,” National Post, January 14, 2014; “Latin drug lords find allies in African Islamists,” Washington Times, November 17, 2009.

26 A story in the New York Times (“Exiled Islamists Watch Rebellion Unfold at Home,”

July 19, 2011) reports that KIFG members of the TNC “have renounced Al Qaeda.” But it supplies no independent evidence that their politics have changed.

27 Michael Evans, "Muslim soldiers 'failed to defend town from Serbs,'" Times (London), July 14, 1995.

28 Richard Palmer. “What Really Happened in Bosnia,” theTrumpet.com, July 12, 2011.

29 Schindler, Unholy Terror, 87; quoting from Jan Willem Honig and Norbert Both, Srebrenica: Record of a War Crime, 79.

30 John Rosenthal, “The Other Crimes of Bosnia,” BigPeace.com, June 2, 2011; summarizing interview of Galbraith by J.M. Berger, “Exclusive: U.S. Policy on Bosnia.Arms Trafficking.”

31 Schindler, Unholy Terror, 182-83; “Exclusive: U.S. Policy on Bosnia Arms Trafficking”; Cees Wiebes, Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992 1995 (Munster: LIT Verlag, 2003), 166-69.

32 “Allies and Lies,” BBC OnLine, June 22, 2001; Wiebes, Intelligence and the War, 183. Also present at Tuzla was an American who introduced himself as “Major Guy Sands,” and who claimed to have been a ten-year veteran of the Vietnam War. Cf. a Swedish report from Tuzla, of an American there who made no secret of his Special Forces background (Brendan O'Shea, Crisis at Bihac: Bosnia’s Bloody Battlefield [stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton, 1998], p. 159). For reports of foreign mujahedin in or near Tuzla, see Kohlmann, Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe, 74, 155, 164.

33 Brendan O’Neill, “How We Trained al-Qa’eda,” Spectator (London), September 13, 2003.

34 Wiebes, Intelligence and the War in Bosnia, 177.

35 Wiebes, Intelligence and the War, 187, 196; citing Cameron Spence, All Necessary Measures, 99-104.

36 Wiebes, Intelligence and the War, 184, 197.

37 “US used Islamists to arm Bosnians,” Guardian, April 22, 2002. Contrast the very different claim by Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, 140: “The U.S. also blocked Iranian and al Qaeda influence in the country [bosnia].”

38 Kohlmann, Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe, 39-41; citing Steve Coll and Steve LeVine, “Global Network Provides Money, Haven,” Washington Post, August 3, 1993. Cf. Schindler, Unholy Terror, 121-22.

39 Scott, Road to 9/11, 149-50; Kohlmann, Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe, 45, 73-75.

40 Scott, Road to 9/11, 149.

41 Lawrence Wright: “Zawahiri decided to look for money in the world center of venture capitalism-Silicon Valley. He had been to America once before, in 1989, when he paid a recruiting visit to the mujahideen's Services Bureau branch office in Brooklyn. According to the F.B.I., he returned in the spring of 1993, this time to Santa Clara, California, where he was greeted by Ali Mohamed, the double agent.” For more about Ali Mohamed, and specifically how the FBI once told the RCMP not to detain him (this freeing Mohamed to plan the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya), see Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11, 147-60.

42 Ottawa Citizen, December 15, 2001.

43 Sir Alfred Sherman, Speech at International Conference, America’s Intervention in the Balkans, February 28-March 2, 1997. html

44 Cf. Schindler, Unholy Terror, 74: Izetbegovic “decided to scrap the initiative, with the apparent encouragement of Warren Zimmermann [sic].” (Cf. 109-10). Zimmerman has denied that he so persuaded Izetbegovic, writing in a letter to the New York Times “that he had urged Izetbegovic to ‘stick by his commitments,’” (Steven L. Burg and Paul Shoup, The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 114).

45 Washington Times, May 4, 1999. Frank Viviano, “Drugs Paying for Conflict in Europe,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 10, 1994: “Narcotics smuggling has become a prime source of financing for civil wars already under way -- or rapidly brewing -- in southern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean, according to a report issued here this week. “The report, by the Paris-based Observatoire Geopolitique des Drogues, or Geopolitical Observatory of Drugs, identifies belligerents in the former Yugoslav republics and Turkey as key players in the region's accelerating drugs-for-arms traffic. “Albanian nationalists in ethnically tense Macedonia and the Serbian province of Kosovo have built a vast heroin network, leading from the opium fields of Pakistan to black-market arms dealers in Switzerland, which transports up to $2 billion worth of the drug annually into the heart of Europe, the report says. More than 500 Kosovo or Macedonian Albanians are in prison in Switzerland for drug- or arms-trafficking offenses, and more than 1,000 others are under indictment.”

46 Michael Levine, New American, May 24, 1999; quoted in Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The War on Truth, 41.

47 Ralf Mutschke, testimony to Committee on the Judiciary, December 13, 2000.

48 Sunday Times (London), March 12, 2000: “Agim Ceku, the KLA commander in the latter stages of the conflict, had established American contacts through his work in the Croatian army, which had been modernised with the help of Military Professional Resources Inc, an American company specialising in military training and procurement. This company's personnel were in Kosovo, along with others from a similar company, Dyncorps [sic], that helped in the American-backed programme for the Bosnian army.”

49 David Hackworth, “Wanted: Guns for Hire,” Hackworth.com, July 9, 2001. Cf. James R. Davis, Fortune’s Warriors: Private Armies and the New World Order, 112; P.W. Singer, Corporate Warriors, 219.

50 Wiebes, Intelligence and the war in Bosnia 1992 – 1995, 190; Observer, November 5, 1995. J.M. Berger reports from declassified documents that MPRI’s contract with Bosnia was arranged via a private company headed by neocon Richard Perle: “Controversial neocon philosopher Richard Perle led an obscure nongovernmental organization tasked with hiring a private company to run the U.S. State Department's "Train and Equip" program in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996.

Perle's group, the "Acquisition Support Institute," hired Military Professional Resources Inc., essentially a professional mercenary company nearly as controversial as Perle himself. It's not at all clear what or whom is responsible for the Institute, or why a "non-governmental, non-profit organization" would be responsible for selecting the recipient of a massive State Department contract on one of the most sensitive issues of the day.

Equipped with a collection of retired military officers, MPRI set itself up as a virtual extension of the U.S. government in both Croatia and Bosnia, as documented in an extensive set of Freedom of Information Act documents I will be publishing over the next several weeks.

MPRI operatives were given the run of the country -- receiving payments and arms from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Muslim countries, which underwrote operations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

In many cases, these payments were brokered directly by the State Department. In some instances, funds and arms were routed into Bosnia without State's explicit approval but often with its knowledge, as documented in the newly declassified records. Unauthorized assistance appears to have come from Pakistan, UAE and Turkey, among others.” (Richard Perle, MPRI and Bosnian Arms Shipments,” Intelwire, February 7, 2007).

51 Sir Alfred Sherman, “The Empire for the New Millenium?” The Centre for Peace in Balkans, May 22, 2000.

52 Cf. the cynical comments of the Swiss analytical group Zeit-Fragen: (Current Concerns, “Where’s the 8th Corridor?” September/October 2001): “By creating a trouble spot in Kosovo the USA is able to control Albania and with it the planned AMBO pipeline…. The USA is showing a conspicuous interest in controlling these strategic transport corridor links in the Balkans. They prohibited a project scheduled to be constructed through Serbia, and they offered Rumania 100 million dollars to move the route of the planned SEEL pipeline (South Eastern European Line) further north, to Hungary. The Italian firm ENI had planned this pipeline project using existing pipeline infrastructure in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia. The USA bombarded the Yugoslavian section of this infrastructure with remarkable doggedness.”

53 Michael Levine, New American, May 24, 1999; quoted in Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The War on Truth, 41.

54 For details, see Scott, American War Machine, 84, 123, 151, etc.; Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 167.

55 Peter Klebnikov, “Heroin Heroes,” Mother Jones, January/February 2000. Clinton at the same time mounted a vigorous campaign against Colombian heroin, increasing the demand for Afghan heroin. As Klebnikov noted, “some White House officials fear Kosovar heroin could replace the Colombian supply. ‘Even if we were to eliminate all the heroin production in Colombia, by no means do we think there would be no more heroin coming into the United States,’ says Bob Agresti of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. ‘Look at the numbers. Colombia accounts for only six percent of the world's heroin. Southwest Asia produces 75 percent.’"

56 Patrick Graham, “Drug Wars: Kosovo’s New Battle,” National Post, April 13, 2000.

57 Schindler, Unholy Terror, 324. Cf. Cristopher Deliso, The Coming Balkan Caliphate (New York: Praeger, 2007).

58 Scott, Road to 9/11, 152-53; citing Paul L. Williams, Al Qaeda, 117; Boston Globe, February 3, 1995, “Figure Cited in Terrorism Case Said to Enter U.S. with CIA Help.”

59 Bergen, Holy War, Inc., 67; cf. Williams, Al Qaeda, 117.

60 Scott, Road to 9/11, 154-56, 160. Cf. Robert L. Friedman, “The CIA and the Sheikh,” Village Voice, March 30, 1993: “As Jack Blum, investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, put it: "One of the big problems here is that many suspects in the World Trade Center bombing were associated with the Mujahadeen. And there are components of our government that are absolutely disinterested in following that path because it leads back to people we supported in the Afghan war.”

61 Scott, Road to 9/11, 156-57; citing J.M. Berger, Ali Mohamed: An Intelwire Sourcebook, 235-36.

62 Estanislao Oziewicz and Tu Thanh Ha, “Canada freed top al-Qaeda operative,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), November 22, 2001. A Lexis-Nexis search for “Ali Mohamed” + Vancouver yields no relevant entries.

63 Patrick Fitzgerald, Testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, June 16, 2004.

64 Peter Lance, Triple Cross, 274-77.

65 United States District Court, Southern District of New York, “United States of America v. Ali Mohamed,” S (7) 98 Cr. 1023, October 20, 2000, link, 17; in J.M. Berger, Ali Mohamed, 294.

66 United States District Court, Southern District of New York, “United States of America v. Ali Mohamed,” S(7) 98 Cr. 1023, 27; in Berger, Ali Mohamed, 304.

67 FBI agent Jack Cloonan, summarizing a post-9/11 interview with Ali Mohamed, in William F. Jasper, “Unleashing a Terrorist,” New American, November 26, 2007. Cf. Lance, Triple Cross, 382.

68 Paul Joseph Watson, “U.S. Attacks Iran Via CIA-Funded Jundullah Terror Group,” NOW Observer, October 20, 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...