“SHOW US THE MONEY,” SPY PRICKS—Name One Dozen Terror Attacks That You Guys Weren’t Behind

US spy chief: surveillance program thwarted attacks

News Asia


The US spy chief in charge of a leaked program to gather and analyse Internet and phone data defended the intelligence tactic Wednesday, insisting it had helped thwart dozens of terror attacks.


WASHINGTON: The US spy chief in charge of a leaked program to gather and analyse Internet and phone data defended the intelligence tactic Wednesday, insisting it had helped thwart dozens of terror attacks.

Facing sceptical questions from lawmakers after a rogue technician revealed the secret operation, National Security Agency chief General Keith Alexander insisted it operates under proper legislative and judicial oversight.

“It’s classified but it’s dozens of terrorist events that these have helped prevent,” he told the hearing, the first time he had been questioned in public since 29-year-old former contractor Edward Snowden spilled the beans.

“I want the American people to know that we’re being transparent in here,” he insisted, warning that “the trust of the American people” was a “sacred requirement” if his agency was to be able to do its job.

Asked if the light shone on the programs could help terrorists avoid surveillance, Alexander said: “They will get through, and Americans will die.”

“Great harm has already been done by opening this up. The consequence I believe is our security has been jeopardised,” he warned.

Snowden, a technician seconded by a private contractor to an NSA base in Hawaii, disappeared last month after downloading a cache of secret documents and surfaced over the weekend in Hong Kong to give media interviews.

He embarrassed and infuriated President Barack Obama’s administration by revealing that the NSA had gathered call log records for millions of American phone subscribers and targeted the Internet data of foreign Web users.

The leaks triggered a row over privacy and the limits of executive power in the digital age, as Snowden said had been his intention, but also calls for the leaker to be arrested and sent home to face trial.

Snowden told Hong Kong daily the South China Morning Post that he would resist any attempt to extradite him, and accused the NSA of carrying out tens of thousands of hacking attacks worldwide.

Chinese media had remained relatively quiet on the issue, but the China Daily said Thursday that news of the US program “is certain to stain Washington’s overseas image and test developing Sino-US ties.”

“How the case is handled could pose a challenge to the burgeoning goodwill between Beijing and Washington given that Snowden is in Chinese territory and the Sino-US relationship is constantly soured on cybersecurity,” the government-owned newspaper said.

Many people hail Snowden as a whistleblower who carried out an act of civil disobedience to expose US government overreach and defend the privacy of innocent Web users.

Others, including US spy chiefs and some senior lawmakers, say Snowden a traitor who sold out a system that serves to protect Americans.

Alexander said he had “grave concerns” about how Snowden was able to gain access to critical classified information with a limited education and not much work experience, noting: “We do have to go back and look at these processes.”

Several investigations are underway and the leaker may yet face criminal charges, but in the meantime, debate is raging about the legality and utility of the NSA’s broad-brush approach to sweeping up private data.

“How do we get from reasonable grounds… to all phone records, all the time, all locations?” asked Senator Jeff Merkley, a longtime opponent of giving the government broad secret surveillance powers.

Holding up his own phone, he asked Alexander: “What authority gave you the grounds for acquiring my cell phone data?”

Alexander repeated the administration’s defence that, while the NSA did gather large quantities of telephone metadata, it could not mine the logs to target a specific user without an order from a secret court.

“We do not see a trade-off between security and liberty,” he said, insisting that the NSA and US Cyber Command are “deeply committed to compliance with the law and the protection of privacy rights.”

“I do think what we’re doing does protect American civil liberties and privacy,” he protested, claiming he welcomed the “debate” sparked by the leaks.

Senator Mark Udall expressed scepticism at this nod to openness.

“It’s very, very difficult, I think, to have a transparent debate about a secret program written by a secret court, issuing secret court orders based on secret interpretations of the law,” he said.

In Hong Kong, Snowden was unrepentant.

“I’m neither traitor nor hero. I’m an American,” he said.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post there had been more than 61,000 NSA hacking operations globally, targeting powerful “network backbones” that can yield access to hundreds of thousands of individual computers.

There were hundreds of targets in mainland China and Hong Kong, he was quoted as saying, alleging this exposed “the hypocrisy of the US government when it claims that it does not target civilian infrastructure.”

Snowden accused the US government of “trying to bully” Hong Kong into expelling him before he can reveal details of alleged NSA snooping on communications inside the Chinese financial and trading hub.

But he pledged to resist any extradition attempt.

“I have had many opportunities to flee HK, but I would rather stay and fight the US government in the courts, because I have faith in HK’s rule of law,” he said, according to the paper.

Putin Tells One Lie Too Many—His Anti-Chinese Uyghur Terrorists Do NOT Target Moscow

[Putin has finally shown his true colors with this latest false flag incident.


And the overweight ringleader, who is in great distress, as he lies prostrate, being pinned to the ground, is obviously NOT CHINESE OR UYGHUR. Yulai Davletbaev

Putin is desperate to make his fight and Obama's fake fight into one great big happy terror war.  Russians should take this as a sign of deception and immediately get the "Russian Spring" back on track.  Putin is just another traitor to the human race, like Obama.]

FSB arrests mastermind of foiled Moscow bombing who ‘fought in Afghanistan’


Federal Security Service agents apprehend Yulai Davletbaev suspected of preparing terror attacks in Moscow during a special operation outside Moscow.(RIA Novosti / National Anti-Terrorism Committe)

Federal Security Service agents apprehend Yulai Davletbaev suspected of preparing terror attacks in Moscow during a special operation outside Moscow.(RIA Novosti / National Anti-Terrorism Committe)

Russia’s FSB secret service has captured the suspected mastermind behind a foiled terror attack in Moscow. His group, which fought in Afghanistan against the ISAF forces, was uncovered and neutralized last month by police.

A man identified as Yulay Davletbayev headed the terror cell, which was plotting an attack in Moscow. Two of his accomplices were killed in a May 20 police operation, while a third was captured alive. The items seized by law enforcers at the time included half-completed suicide vests, detonators and metal shrapnel.

The FSB captured Davletbayev, who is in his early 40s, in a suburb of Moscow after weeks of searching, the committee said. “This job took considerable effort and cooperation from troops, national bodies and local authorities. Several regions of the Russian Federation conducted search and screening operations. This allowed identifying the location where the criminal was hiding.”

All of the militants were Russian citizens, Russia’s National Antiterrorism Committee said Thursday. The group trained in combat and demolition along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a region controlled by the Taliban.

They are also known to have fought against the US-led ISAF coalition deployed in Afghanistan, the committee reported.

The cell was sent to Moscow by the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, [[WHAT THE F?]] also known as the Turkistan Islamic Party, a terrorist organization that seeks to establish an Islamic state inside the Chinese border province of Xinjiang. The organization has carried out attacks against US-related targets, and others.


Federal Security Service agents apprehend Yulai Davletbaev suspected of preparing terror attacks in Moscow during a special operation outside Moscow.(RIA Novosti / National Anti-Terrorism Committe)

Federal Security Service agents apprehend Yulai Davletbaev suspected of preparing terror attacks in Moscow during a special operation outside Moscow.(RIA Novosti / National Anti-Terrorism Committe)

The group’s goal was to organize a series of attack in the Russian capital during Victory Day celebrations on May 9. Davletbayev got a job as taxi driver to familiarize himself with the city and pick high-value targets for future attacks, the committee said.

“While navigating around the city in his taxi, he was selecting places most vulnerable for a terrorist attack, which would suffer most damage and cause greatest loss of life,” the committee said.

They failed to meet their timetable, and were ultimately exposed by the Russian security services. .

The arrest of the cell’s leader came after the arrested member, Robert Amerkhanov, decided to cooperate with investigators.

The group is suspected of committing several crimes in Russia’s southern regions before 2010, when they moved to Afghanistan.

The FSB also has information on Davletbayev’s links to another militant leader, who was responsible for bombing a natural gas pipeline and at least two attacks on Russian police officers; the leader was killed in 2010 by anti-terrorism forces.

The Russian capital has seen a number of deadly terror attacks in recent years. The most recent was in January 2011, when a suicide bomber set off an explosive device in the arrival zone of Domodedovo Airport, killing 36 people and injuring 180 others. In March 2010, bombings in the Moscow Metro killed 41 people and injured around 100.

Russia’s Iskander and S-300 Missile Systems Not Really for Sale—Used for Mind Games Only

Russian S-300 missiles a pawn in diplomatic game, Wikileaks show



* Wikileaks cables show Russia said it would not sell S-300 to Syria

* Russia similarly “froze” S-300 sale to Iran

* But linked Iran sale to progress on missile defence in Europe

By Tom Miles

GENEVA, June 3 (Reuters) – Russia’s pledge to deliver anti-aircraft missiles to Damascus at a time when world powers are trying to end Syria’s civil war is consistent with a pattern of using the weapons system as a bargaining chip in its power struggle with the West.

Russia has said it is committed to sell the S-300 surface-to-air missiles as a deterrent against foreign military intervention, under a contract struck in 2010 with President Bashar al-Assad.

But Western powers who are trying, along with Russia, to organise an international conference to end the 26-month-old conflict say such a delivery would be hugely counter-productive.

“No one knows if this conference will become a success, but it is the wrong message which has been sent by Russia to the world and to the region by delivering S-300 or other weapons,” German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said on Friday.

Secret WikiLeaks cables show that Russia has played this game before, in particular with the long-range S-300 that Israel, for one, sees as a “red line” threat to its airspace.

Russia’s determination to supply Syria mirrors an earlier commitment to Iran, though it long assured diplomats it had no intention of sending S-300s to either country, the cables show.

Russia was well aware of the “destabilising” effect of supplying weapons like the S-300 to the Middle East, one September 2008 cable quoted Viktor Simakov, Counselor for Israel and Palestine in Russia’s Foreign Ministry, as saying.

“Simakov reiterated that Russia understood very well Israel’s concern about either Syria or Iran obtaining the Iskander or S-300 missile systems,” the cable said.

Syria had upset Russia by allowing an earlier delivery of anti-tank missiles to fall into the hands of militant Islamist group Hezbollah, and Russia promised tighter “end user controls” in future.

Syria tried to obtain missiles in 2008 by offering to host Russia’s own missile defences on its territory, matching U.S. missile defences in Europe that Russia objects to. Although Russia did sign a contract in 2010, it did not then agree; Israel’s promise not to sell arms to Georgia during the Georgia-Russia war that August may have outweighed Syria’s offer.

Speculation was mounting in late 2008 that Russia was planning to honour its 2005 contract to supply S-300s to Iran. But Russian officials assured the U.S. charge d’affaires in Moscow that the transfer would not be completed until Iran complied with its nuclear obligations, according to one cable.

But by early 2009, the sale looked like it was going to take place, and Washington asked six allied Middle Eastern countries to raise the issue immediately with Russia.

The move appeared to pay off, although then-U.S. Ambassador to Moscow John Beyrle expected Russia to keep pressing the issue, for financial, political and foreign policy reasons.

The Iran sale was merely “frozen”, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told U.S. Senator Carl Levin in 2009, and hinted that Russia did not want to be challenged again.

“The less we hear from Washington about this, the better,” an April 2009 cable quoted Ryabkov as saying.

Russian officials told Amos Gilad, at that time head of the political-military bureau in Israel’s Ministry of Defence, that the missiles to Iran would not be delivered for political reasons.

“However, Gilad said the Russians would reassess this political calculation should the United States continue to pursue missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic,” said a cable dated July 30, 2009.

In the end, Russia scrapped the sale in 2010, and in what may have been a quid pro quo, the Israelis agreed to sell Russia surveillance drones that would narrow its technological military gap with Georgia.

“For better or for worse, the delivery of S-300’s have become a barometer of our bilateral relations,” Ambassador Beyrle wrote in 2009.

“Metropolitan police entered BBC studios and arrested Mr Nusaybah….His arrest was not directly linked to…Adebolajo”

“Metropolitan police entered BBC studios and arrested Mr Nusaybah….His arrest was not directly linked to his 28-year-old friend Adebolajo’s alleged murder of soldier Lee Rigby.”

[Is there anybody in all of Britain who believes this denial?  If it had truly been unrelated to the testimony that he was in the process of giving in the BBC interview, then why was the session disrupted by the police, just as he was testifying to the involvement of British secret services in the pre-attack life of Mr. Adebolajo?  The BBC was inadvertantly stepping on MI5/6 toes, probably causing news bosses to freak-out over what their minions were up to, forcing them to request the emergency shut-down of the dangerous interview by intelligence officials.

England is about to burn, and all of Europe with it, but probably for the exact wrong reasons.  Continent-wide civil war will not help the struggle of the common man, but will merely strengthen the hand of the State (SEE:  Camp of the Saints).]

Woolwich attack: Michael Adebolajo’s friend tells the BBC MI5 tried to recruit his friend


Michael Adebolajo

Michael Adebolajo, front, shouts slogans as Muslims march in London in a protest against the arrest of six people in anti-terror raids in April 2007. Picture: AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth

A FRIEND of one of the Woolwich fanatics has been arrested by counter terrorism police moments after he told BBC that M15 attempted to recruit his friend to work for them.

The alleged Woolwich attackers, identified as Michael Adebolajo and Michael Oluwatobi Adebowale, are currently both being held by heavily armed police in separate hospitals where they have been recovering from gunshot wounds.

The pair was shot by police on Wednesday after they allegedly hacked to death 25-year-old Lee Rigby and then, armed with knives and a hand gun, charged at police.

In other developments:

Abu Nusaybah gave an interview to the BBC at their premises in central London about his childhood friend murder suspect Michael Adebolajo .He said Adebolajo had undergone a “change” after he was detained by security forces in Kenya last year and underwent physical and sexual abused during interrogation.

He said when he returned to the UK M15 asked if he would work for them as an informer. They allegedly harassed him for some months.

“His wording was, “They are bugging me – they won’t leave me alone”,” Mr Nusaybah said.

“He mentioned initially they wanted to ask him if he knew certain individuals. But after him saying that he didn’t know these individuals, what he said was they asked him if he would be interested in working for them. He was explicit in that he refused to work for them, but he did confirm he didn’t know the individuals.”

Then in a twist, Metropolitan police entered BBC studios and arrested Mr Nusaybah in relation to terrorism offences. They also raided his home and another in East London. Police have confirmed the 31-year-old was being held on suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism at a south London police station.

His arrest was not directly linked to his 28-year-old friend Adebolajo’s alleged murder of soldier Lee Rigby.

The British Government has yet to comment on the claims made by Mr Nusaybah about Adebolajo or on his own arrest.

It is understood Mr Nusaybah had once been linked to an extremist Islamic group in Britain led by self styled “sheik of east London” and hate preacher Anjew Choudary although claims he moved away from the group sometime ago.

Claims Adebolajo was tortured by Kenyan authorities last year after refusing to speak with them could also not be verified. Mr Nusaybah said however his friends’ experiences in Kenya and alleged “harassment” by M15 changed his personality, made him withdrawn and less talkative.

“His mind was somewhere else but his presence was there,” he said, adding that tears welled in his friend’s eyes when he spoke about Kenya although he was not exactly sure what happened.

“He said ‘ I feel shy to describe what that did to me’,” Mr Nusaybah said of his friends experiences which he suggested was sexual abuse.

Lee Rigby

Flowers and tributes mount at the place outside Woolwich Barracks where British soldier Lee Rigby was murdered yesterday.

He said Adebolajo had wished to live in a Muslim country with Sharia law and had visited Kenya for this reason.

It has been previously claimed the Adebolajo may have been attempting to make his way to Somalia to join a terrorist group to make jihad.

Attack pair set to be grilled

THE two men accused of a frenzied murder of a soldier in south east London are expected to be interviewed this weekend.

Police shot the pair. Despite their injuries they have been deemed fit to be interviewed.

Woolwich machete hacking attack against soldier Lee Rigby

Woolwich machete hacking attack against soldier Lee Rigby. Both attack suspects were known to MI5 security forces from previous security services investigations.

Investigators from the counter terrorist police unit are particularly keen to establish whether they acted alone or whether the attack was part of a broader orchestrated campaign involving others.

It has been established at least one belonging to an extremist Islamic group and influenced by a banned imam who has since been booted out of the UK.

Two women arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to murder Drummer Rigby have now been released without charge.

A 29-year-old was arrested yesterday in connection with the killing while a 31 year-old, had been held by police at a home in south London last night and later released.

Detectives are still questioning a 29-year-old man also on suspicion of conspiracy to murder.

Fears of more lone wolf style attacks

Meanwhile, Britain potentially faces more “individualist jihad” style killings similar to the attack Drummer Rigby as anti-Muslim sentiments are stirred to dangerous levels.

That’s the view of a number of terrorism experts in Britain as they fear certain radical magazines and social media can remotely spark extremist converts into attacks.

Reading University international terrorism and al Qaeda expert Dr Christina Hellmich said while al Qaeda’s capabilities are largely destroyed individual terrorism could flourish.

“The fear right now is that we have a wave of individual terror ahead of us,” she said.

“The term al-Qaeda always comes up as if it is al-Qaeda that is propagating these attacks. But that gives us the illusion that there is still some monolithic group behind this pulling the strings. This is not the case. We are dealing with individualist jihadist everywhere but they are the fragment of the organisation.”

The concepts of individual attacks are being promoted by radical Islamists, including through the Inspire magazine produced by al-Qaeda, largely blamed for promoting the attack on the Boston Marathon earlier this month.

“Inspire has been trying to propagate the individual jihad as a strategy since 2010 in their magazine but it hasn’t really paid off. If these are the only attacks then it’s not very much.”

Jeffrey DeMarco, lecturer and researcher in criminology at Kingston University, agrees the attack demonstrates an increase in “lone wolf” terrorism which could pose a risk for security services to manage.

“We have been seeing slowly but really most noticeably with Mumbai in 2008, this escalation and this frequent recurrence of the lone wolves who aren’t part of the intricate terrorist cells or organisations,” he said.

According to DeMarco the purpose is to invoke widespread fear. “Mass casualties are not necessarily the endgame, the epidemic of fear can be just as damaging.”

Matthew Henman, senior analyst at IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre (JTIC), said: “The fact that the attackers made no attempt to flee the scene, combined with their interaction with bystanders, may indicate an effort to maximise publicity of the attack and to ensure that their message was recorded and publicised.”

Obama To Make All Wars Covert Wars—He’s Running Scared

obama-doubletalk.jpg w=450&h=126

[Obama's speech and the following report about it are total bullshit...disinformation at best.  Nobody has any intention of ever ending this war, no matter how many times Obama claims to be doing it.  He has no more intention of closing Guantanamo Bay today than he did the last time he promised to close it.  The very fact that Team Obama has made this public speech about ending America's "perpetual wartime footing," is proof that the Establishment is running scared over anti-war and anti-police state sentiments.  Perpetual, or "persistent war" are descriptions of the American terror war that have come straight from the Pentagon itself.  The fact that Obama felt it necessary to disassociate his administration from this idea of a "perpetual" war or a thirty-year war, is proof positive that this is a very touchy issue. 

We the People are slowly starting to catch-on to the schemes of the American ruling class, worrying all of them that we will figure-out what they have been doing to us before they get finished fucking us.  This is why Obama is giving this speech (SEE: Obama Trying To Make Rape Look Like Seduction ).  It is good to know that the idea of an American awakening gives the Big Bosses a little trouble sleeping.  It is way past time to repeal the completely worn-out AUMF (authorization to use military force) from the 911 attacks:

"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States."

Since we are no longer engaged anywhere with any of the "al-Qaeda" factions which have been blamed for the attacks, and because we are now allied with some of those same "al-CIA-da" groups in Syria and in Africa, the government should be forced into producing a brand new "authorization for military force," defining precisely who we are fighting against into the forseeable future, and even more important, why we are waging war against them.]

Should President Obama end the war on terror?


He came to talk about the future, but the past keeps pulling him back.

President Obama outlined his vision for a revised American counterterrorism policy during Thursday’s speech at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., renewing his call to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and announcing new guidelines to govern the use of targeted drone strikes on foreign soil.

Animating many of the president’s proposals was a stated desire to “discipline our thinking and our actions” and to move America away from a “perpetual wartime footing” that has held sway for nearly 12 years, since Congress passed an Authorization to Use Military Force [AUMF] in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

The president pledged to “work with Congress” to “refine and ultimately repeal” the AUMF, warning that a strategy of “perpetual war – through drones or special forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.”

Simply put: While “our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” the president said, “This war, like all wars, must end.”

While Mr. Obama has spoken before about the need for a return to normalcy of sorts in how America views and responds to terrorist threats, rarely has he expressed that point so baldly and called for an outright “end” to the nearly-12-year old conflict.

But should the “war on terror,” as we know it today, be drawn to a conclusion, given the continued threat posed by terrorists? And with the hypersensitivity attending public discussion on the issue, is it politically realistic to expect a declared end to the “war on terror” any time soon?

The “big question here is whether the president’s words translate into real policy or operational practice,” said CBS News senior national security analyst Juan Zarate. “Ultimately, the threats, as they continue to morph, will dictate how willing we are to constrain [counterterrorism] power.”

And the “political realities” of zero tolerance for terrorist attacks on the homeland will jeopardize “any attempts to limit our [counterterrorism] actions,” added Zarate, also a former deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration.

“The most important advance in the speech was the acknowledgement that the war will end at a foreseeable point in the future,” former assistant secretary of state for public affairs P.J. Crowley told CBSNews.com. “This will require an unwinding of policies, authorities and tactics that have accumulated over the past dozen years.”

But if the immediate reaction to Mr. Obama’s speech is any indication, some in Congress are not so keen on abandoning America’s post-9/11 counterterrorism policies, with several Republican senators blasting the president for what they fear is a premature pivot.

The president’s speech “will be viewed by terrorists as a victory,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said in a statement. “Rather than continuing successful counterterrorism activities, we are changing course with no clear operational benefit.”

Play Video

GOP Sens. slam Obama’s suggestion that war on terror “must end”

“To somehow argue that al Qaeda is quote, ‘on the run,’ comes from a degree of unreality that is really incredible,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said after the president’s speech Thursday afternoon, arguing that the terrorist syndicate is expanding, not contracting. “To somehow think we can bring the authorization of the use of military force to closure conflicts with the reality of the facts on the ground.”

Crowley knocked Republicans for pushing a strategically and legally “unsustainable” policy, explaining, “We have invested significant powers in the president in a time of war, but to suggest that we will be engaged in war indefinitely fundamentally changes the Constitution, and I don’t know that the American people want that and I’m not sure that the congress wants that either.”

“Wars have beginnings, wars have endings, and wars have defined boundaries,” he said. “Without specifics, then it’s impossible to define success.”

And a failure to augment America’s counterterrorism posture, Crowley warned, could present dangers separate from the concerns voiced by GOP senators. “The concept of indefinite war plays into the al Qaeda narrative,” he explained, noting the grievances that foreign populations have voiced about America’s aggressively militarized counterterrorism policies. “When you project the prospect of indefinite war, that continues to suggest that the military will always be the primary instrument, and we have said many times that we can’t kill our way out of this problem.”

He added that the president “signaled very clearly that the challenge of terrorism is not going away,” and that he is only striving to combat that terrorism in different ways as the threat evolves.

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, echoed Crowley on that point, telling CBSNews.com in an email that the president’s speech was “hopeful…in intent in aspiration, but also conservative in not abandoning any existing tools of warfare prematurely.”

So where do we go from here? If the existing tools in the war on terror are increasingly difficult to situate within the 2001 authorization of military force, as Crowley and others argued, can Congress be expected to revise – or repeal outright – that authorization to accommodate evolving realities?

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., offered at least a glimmer of an opening to the president in a statement released before the speech, arguing that that the 2001 AUMF is “increasingly unrelated to current terrorist threats,” and welcoming discussions with the administration and bipartisan members of congress on “how best to pursue necessary updates to the authorization for use of military force.”

“I hope that Congress is open to a revision of the AUMF for a variety of reasons,” Crowley said, “but if we’re still at war, the American people need to know that we’re still at war and they need to be assured that what we continue to do in various places around the world is consistent with both domestic and international law.”

“The immediate response from members of Congress” on revising the AUMF “is not surprising but disappointing,” Crowley said.

Zarate added that, while the president’s “promise of eventual repeal is quite significant,” it “will never be done in this term.”

And as the promise of a long, hard slog awaits the president and those who support his push to pull Americans back from the fever pitch of a perpetual “war on terror,” some argued that an abundance of patience might be in order.

“The president suggested that at a point, the war against al Qaeda or the war on terror will end just like all wars eventually end,” Crowley said. “He didn’t say it would be tomorrow.”

  • prev
  • no next page

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Chechens To Be Next “Al-CIA-da”—Major Propaganda Offensive Underway from Helmand, Afghanistan To Moscow

taliban Taliban Horde

[Here we have a joint psyop, carried-out by unidentified international elements, with the clear intention of painting "Chechnya/Caucasus" as the next "Al-Qaeda" outpost.  In Moscow, the Russian FSB claimed to have disrupted a Chechen terror plot by individuals who had recently arrived from the "Afghan-Pakistan region," where they had allegedly trained for this plot.  On the same day, in Afghanistan's Helmand Province, another bit of psychological warfare concerning itinerent Chechens was delivered to the unsuspecting American masses and to the general world audience. 

According to an Helmand Provincial spokesman and an alleged "Taliban spokesman" (some unknown quantity named Qari Yusuf Ahmadi who is the favorite pseudo-Taliban "spokesman" for Al-Jazeera and CNN.), while the attacks were unfolding in Russia, Helmand was allegedly, simultaneously, being overrun by "1,000 attackers," many of which were reported as Chechens and Arabs (i.e., "Al-CIA-da"). Two unrelated attacks in one day, both of which accentuated the dangers of Chechen "Al-Qaeda."  What are the odds of that?  A billion to one?

American and ISAF spokesmen are squirming on their hotseats, trying to disavow knowledge of any Taliban offensive, claiming that any attack that size would have automatically generated a call for air support.  Coalition spokesman Col. Thomas Collins described the incident as--

"Ten groups of between 8 and 10 Taliban fighters...doing drive-by shootings against five police checkpoints."---Coalition Plays Down Afghan Reports of Major Battle in Helmand

All of this circumstantial evidence that "Chechens are the new Al-Qaeda" comes after America has suddenly been sensitized to the Chechen danger because of the Boston bombing, which allegedly implicated Russian immigrants, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  Not yet fully understanding the purpose of this latest psyop tangent, we must throw into the mix the arrest and deportation of the alleged CIA spy, Ryan Fogle, who was reportedly trying to bribe FSB specialists on the region, hoping to turn them into CIA moles.

Coincidence?   The dangerous, imaginary connections linking militant training camps in FATA, Chechen terrorists, Russia and the Marathon bombing suddenly popping-up as Obama is desperately looking to Central Asia, trying to find a reason to make it the next major conflict zone for his perpetual war. 

This is Obama, Putin, Karzai and the Taliban all working together, as one unit. 

Watch Putin to see how all of this is going to play-out.]

Pakistani and Chechen rebels attack police check post in Helmand

By Mirwais Adeel

Afghan family killed following blast in HelmandAt least 23 Taliban militants including Pakistani and Chechen fighters were killed after attacking a police check post in southern Helmand province of Afghanistan.

Local officials in Helmand province said the incident took place in Sangin district, leaving four Afghan police officers dead.

Provincial governor spokesman Omar Zwak said the attack was carried out jointly by Pakistani and Chechen militants.

He said clashes started late Monday and the two sides are still exchanging fire.

In the meantime Taliban militants group claimed around 10 police officers along with thier commander were killed.

This comes as Afghan defense ministry on Monday announced that hundreds of Pakistani and foreign militants were deployed to Afghanistan to carry out attacks in Afghanistan.

Defense ministry spokesman Gen. Zahir Azimi said several religious Madrasas teaching Taliban militants were closed and the fighters were deployed in Afghanistan.

Follow Khaama Press (KP)

The Arab/American Conspiracy To Sell-Out the Rights of the Palestinians (Soon To Become “Jordanians”)


[SEE:  Fayyad Quits as Palestinian Premier After Tension With Abbas ; The Jordanian Option has Always Been Zionism’s Plan]

Exclusive: Kerry’s plans double peace track:

Israel vs Palestinians and vs Arab League


US Secretary of State John Kerry has gained the consent of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for his novel plan to run peace negotiations on two tracks – Israel versus Palestinians plus Israel, for the first time in its history, directly facing the Arab League.
This is reported exclusively by debkafile.
The two tracks will run simultaneously. Kerry says more work needs to be done before a starting date can be scheduled but he hopes the talks can begin this summer.
This formula was designed to address the fundamental objections he ran into in the spring at the start of his initiative for re-launching Middle East peace talks.

Netanyahu said that while the withdrawal of the 2002 Saudi Peace plan, which gained Arab League endorsement as the Arab Peace Initiative, was not an Israeli pre-condition for attending peace negotiations, the talks would quickly run into a stalemate if the demand for a total Israel withdrawal to pre-1967 lines in return for peace and normal relations with the Arab world remained on the table.

Abbas, for his part, told the Secretary of State that comprehensive Arab backing was imperative for him to consent to reenter peace talks with Israel after two years of stalling.

Kerry accordingly invited a group of prominent Arab foreign ministers, heads of the Arab Peace Initiative follow-up committee, to visit Blair House, the official guest house of the US government, for a thorough threshing-out of the issues standing in the way of an Arab peace with Israel. Among those present were Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim, chair of the Arab Peace Initiative follow-up committee, Arab League Chairman Nabil al-Arabi and Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki.

After putting before them the Israeli prime minister’s objections to the Saudi peace plan, Kerry was able to
persuade the Arab ministers to accept President Barack Obama’s formulation, which provides for an Israeli return to the 1967 boundaries with “comparable and mutual agreed minor swaps of the land.”

Obama added this rider to accommodate “the burgeoning communities in the area.”

Netanyahu had told Kerry that if he could convince the Arab League ministers to adopt this rider, he would have taken a big step towards getting negotiations moving between Israel and the Arab League for a comprehensive peace.
As Kerry prepared to inform the PA leader that he had obtained “Arab endorsement” for the simultaneous two-track talks, the Palestinians were sending out mixed signals: Wednesday night, May 1, Abbas said the “minor swaps” locution was acceptable, followed by Riyad al-Maliki who insisted that the Arab Peace Initiative must be accepted as it stood, unless the full Arab League endorsed amendments.

Nevertheless, there is much optimism in Washington that a breakthrough in the stalled Middle East peace process is at hand. Vice President Joe Biden seconded Kerry’s description of “a very positive, very constructive discussion,” at Blair House this week.

According to senior sources in Washington and Jerusalem, the Secretary of State is running his initiative virtually single handed without recourse to the usual bevy of Middle East experts. He accepts that there is plenty of work ahead before he can declare the two negotiating tracks ready to go.

Ruslan Tsarni Formerly Married To Daughter of CIA Official Graham Fuller

  Graham Fuller cia

Boston bombers’ uncle married daughter of top CIA official


The uncle of the two suspected Boston bombers in last week’s attack, Ruslan Tsarni, was married to the daughter of former top CIA official Graham Fuller

The discovery that Uncle Ruslan Tsarni had spy connections that go far deeper than had been previously known is ironic, especially since the mainstrean media’s focus yesterday was on a feverish search to find who might have recruited the Tsarnaev brothers.

The chief suspect was a red-haired Armenian exorcist.  They were fingering a suspect who may not, in fact, even exist.

It was like blaming one-armed hippies on acid for killing your wife.


Ruslan Tsarni married the daughter of former top CIA official Graham Fuller, who spent 20 years as operations officer in Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong. In 1982 Fuller was appointed the National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia at the CIA, and in 1986, under Ronald Reagan, he became the Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, with overall responsibility for national level strategic forecasting.

At the time of their marriage, Ruslan Tsarni was known as Ruslan Tsarnaev, the same last name as his nephews Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged bombers.

It is unknown when he changed his last name to Tsarni.

What is known is that sometime in the early 1990’s, while she was a graduate student in North Carolina, and he was in law school at Duke, Ruslan Tsarnaev met and married Samantha Ankara Fuller, the daughter of Graham and Prudence Fuller of Rockville Maryland. Her middle name suggests a reference to one of her father’s CIA postings.

The couple divorced sometime before 2004.

Today Ms. Fuller lives abroad, and is a director of several companies pursuing strategies to increase energy production from clean-burning and renewable resources.

On a more ominous note, Graham Fuller was listed as one of the American Deep State rogues on Sibel Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege Gallery,. Edmonds explained it featured subjects of FBI investigations she became aware of during her time as an FBI translator.

Criminal activities were being protected by claims of State Secrets, she asserted. After Attorney General John Ashcroft went all the way to the Supreme Court to muzzle her under a little-used doctrine of State Secrets, she put up twenty-one photos, with no names.

One of them was Graham Fuller.

“Congress of Chechen International” c/o Graham Fuller

A story about a Chechen oik exec/uncle pairing up with a top CIA official who once served as CIA Station Chief in Kabul sounds like a pitch for a bad movie.

But the two men may have been in business together.

In 1995, Tsarnaev incorporated the Congress of Chechen International Organizations in Maryland, using as the address listed on incorporation documents 11114 Whisperwood Ln, in Rockville Maryland, the home address of his then-father-in-law.

It is just eight miles up the Washington National Pike from the Montgomery Village home where “Uncle Ruslan” met—and apparently wowed, the press after the attack in Boston.

The Washington Post yesterday called him a “media maven,” while nationally syndicated Washington Post columnist Ester Cepeda , in a piece with the headline “The Wise Words of Uncle Ruslan” opined that he was her choice for “an award for bravery in the face of adversity.”

Success through indirection, mis-direction, redirection, and protection

Uncle Ruslan’s spy connections go far deeper than was already known, which was that he spent two years working in Kazakhstan for USAID.

But the mainstream media was lookng the other way.

Under the headline Did ‘Misha’ influence Tsarnaevs? In Watertown, doubts,” USA Today reported: “Misha. A new name has emerged in the Boston Marathon bombing case—one familiar to the family of the two young men accused of the atrocity and apparently of interest to the Russian and American security services as well.”

Ruslan Tsarni was the first to bring up the supposed man’s supposed name. Or rather, he brought up a first name:  Misha. But it was enough. We were off to the races…

Attention all cars: Be on lookout for chubby Armenian exorcist

Tsarni described Misha to CNN as being “chubby, a big guy, big mouth presenting himself with some kind of abilities as exorcist . . . having some part-time job in one of the stores, not married. All of the qualifications of a loser, just another big mouth.”

According to Uncle Ruslan, Misha was the man who over a considerable period of time had radicalized Tamerlan.

It seemed strange, then, that  in contrast to his “you are there” verbal picture of the man, even with all his supposed concerns, and given his high level of education and abundant resources (Big Sky Energy was paying him in excess of $200,00 a year, according to documents filed with the SEC) Ruslan had somehow never found out just who the bad guy was.

He never got a name, something that in spook-dom is considered something of a faux pas. Then again, no one else had either.

Worse, Tsarni’s vivid description seemed to be taken from personal observation, from, in other words…real life. But that isn’t possible. Tsarni had stated he hadn’t been physically in the presence of his Boston relatives since December 2005. And Misha, if he existed, didn’t show up on the scene until 2008 at the earliest.

Still,  just a few days later, the entire family began chiming in. Misha anecdotes were flying fast & furious, and the nation’s scribblers were busy uncritically scribbling down their every word.

Maybe their Twitter account got hacked again?

No performance was nearly as masterful, however, as that of the Associated Press.

“Bomb suspect influenced by mysterious radical, reported the Associated Press.

“Tamerlan’s relationship with Misha could be a clue in understanding the motives behind his religious transformation and, ultimately, the attack itself,” reported the Associate Press. Only to take it all back in the very next line.

“Two U.S. officials say he had no tie to terrorist groups.”

The AP’s “story” about the mysterious “Misha” was 1145 words, long enough for an editor to squeeze in a caveat.

“It was not immediately clear whether the FBI has spoken to Misha or was attempting to,” the national wire service reported. “Efforts over several days by The Associated Press to identify and interview Misha have been unsuccessful.”

The big difference: when you do it, its conspiracy theory. When we do it, its informed speculation.

In any other context, this might be seen as the rankest kind of “conspiracy theory.” But, apparently, when the Associated Press does it, its news.

Then Uncle Ruslan made a clear mis-step.

“An uncle of the alleged bombers claims that Misha, an Armenian convert to Islam, had a huge influence on the elder brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  Describing him as an “Armenia exorcist, Tsarni said, “Somehow he just took his brain.”

Armenians are a deeply-rooted Christian community, which is proud of the fact that their country was the first in the world to adopt Christianity as state religion in 301 AD.

Moreover this is the week every year when they remember the Armenian Holocaust, when as many as 1,000,000 Armenians were slaughtered by Turkish Muslims.

In the large and close-knit Boston Armenian community, a red-bearded Armenian named Misha becoming a radicalized Muslim would stand out.

“I’ve never heard of him, nor has anyone that I know,” Hilda Avedissian, executive director at the Armenian Cultural & Educational Centre.

So what if the guy was involved with biggest bank fraud in history?

“For an Armenian to convert to Islam is like finding a unicorn in a field,” Nerses Zurabyan, 32, an information technology director who lives in nearby Cambridge told USA Today.

The report reveals that the bomber’s Uncle, made famous for his outspoken condemnation of his nephew’s which aired repeatedly on international news networks, is a well-connected oil executive who at one point worked for a Halliburton shell company used as a front to obtain oil contracts from the Kazakh State.

Ruslon Tsarni was implicated in an investigation involving the laundering and theft of $6 billion. But everybody loves Uncle Ruslon. At least most of America’s mainstream media does.

There has, to date, been no speculation at all about whether an uncle of the men suspected of the bombing who had been involved in international intrigue at the hightest levels, and who married the daughter of a top CIA official, might warrant a closer look.

It’s enough, isn’t it, to turn even reasonably rational adults into—gasp!—conspiracy theorists.

“News,” someone once wrote, “is selection. And selection is always  based on an ideology and agenda, which is something to remember next time you watch, listen or read the ‘news.’”

Too true.

Obama Keeps Resisting Zionist “Red Lines,” Tripwires, Forcing His Hand On Syria

[Both Zionist Central in London and that shitty little Zionist cesspool in the Middle East urge Obama to accept whatever "evidence" that they produce of any chemical weapons's use within Syria as proof that the "red lines" have been crossed, even if the lines were violated by the terrorist rebels, instead of by Assad (SEE:  'Growing evidence' of chemical weapons use in Syria - UK).  They have managed to recreate the same scenario within Syria that they almost pulled-off in Iran, with the help of different terrorist friends of America, the anti-Shia MEK/Jundullah.  Just as he refused to cave-in to previous Zionist pressure to launch an airborne aggression against Iran, he is apparently resisting pressure to cross the line which he has drawn in the sand with his own hand.  This doesn't mean to imply that he is secretly a good guy, but that he does not like it when other people try to force him to take unpleasant, ill-advised actions.  Don't read this as hope on my part that Obama will choose to do the right thing when the time comes, because I still firmly believe that he will not hesitate to push the "big red button" when the time comes, probably with a big smile on his lips.  He will be smiling  when he follows his master's order to unleash Armegeddon, pleased with himself for having ignored the hyped screams of the Apocalyptic cheerleaders like McCain, Cameron and Netanyahu.  Mistakes have been made by all of the team players who have misjudged the resiliency of Assad and the core strengths of the Lebanese resistance forces, but jumping the gun on WWIII will not improve the Empire's chances of success.  The time for the Greater Middle East War has passed, since the momentum for that war has been missed by both Bush and Obama.  Bush missed it on several occasions, after Afghanistan, after Iraq and after Israel failed in Lebanon in 2006, failing yet one more time, after the failed Georgian tangent in 2008.  Obama's big failure was in his hesitation in the early days of the anti-Syrian war.   Failure to jump on the war wagon there gave Russia time to turn the tables.  Odds are, the American/world economies will be fully depleted before Obama can organize another attempt, meaning that nothing has changed except for the American ability to control the flow of future events.  World War III will probably happen by accident, the way it should all go down.  Taking steps to avoid such an extinction-level event should by the number one priority with all earthly governments.]

White House: Obama’s red line not crossed on Syria chemical weapons

cbs this-morning

The U.S. has acknowledged evidence of a small-scale nerve gas attack in Syria. But, has Syria crossed President Obama's red line and will the U.S. intervene militarily? Major Garrett reports.

(CBS News) For the first time, the White House says chemical weapons have been used in Syria’s civil war. The Obama administration said it believes President Bashar Al-Assad used sarin gas on people last month. That report is leading some to ask if the U.S. is ready to consider military action.

The White House said the evidence of Syrian chemical weapons attacks is still too thin and President Obama’s red line has not been crossed, and that means military intervention by the United States in the Syrian civil war is not imminent and not guaranteed but more study and investigation is needed.

Syria has likely used chemical weapons on a “small scale,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.Hagel was the first to confirm the startling news. He read from a prepared statement: “The Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”

But Hagel, consistent with administration policy, laced his announcement with carefully crafted caveats. Hagel said, “We still have uncertainties about what was used, what kind of chemicals was used, where it was used, who used it.”

Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers that Syria used chemical weapons twice last month, once near Damascus and once in Aleppo. Victims appeared to have been gassed.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a red line and could move the U.S. closer to military intervention in the Syrian civil war.

Mr. Obama said on Aug. 20, 2012, “A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”

But top White House advisers insist the red line has not been crossed. In letters to Congress, the administration said it needs more proof — in its words, “credible and corroborated facts.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has continuously pressed Mr. Obama to intervene, said the president is ducking his own standard. “The president of the United States said that this would be a red line if they used chemical weapons. The president of the United States has now told us that they used chemical weapons,” McCain said. “We must give the opposition the capability to drive out Bashar Assad once and for all.”

U.S. intelligence says it has “varying degrees of confidence” Syria used chemical weapons. But the U.S. isn’t the only nation hedging its bets. British intelligence says it has “persuasive information chemical weapons were used.” French intelligence says it has clues but no proof. However, CBS News’ Major Garrett reported, “Definitive proof may be very hard to find amid the raging Syrian civil war.”

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Have You Ever Heard Of “Al-CIA-da” Attacking Iran?

[I, myself, have been one of the loudest voices in the past, protesting that "Al Qaeda is Sunni and hates Iran," but the longer this game goes on, the more I come to see that Shia Iran has been an ally of the real "al-CIA-da" all along.  After all, wasn't it Iran that supplied most of the first recruits from the Afghan mujahedeen to ship to Bosnia for Clinton? (SEE:  Dutch inquiry into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre).  Can anyone remember ever hearing of an "al-CIA-da" attack upon Iran, or Shiites, for that matter?  For Westerners to admit that previous murders and terrorist attacks have been committed by the same bunch of intelligence operatives that we normally would label "al-Qaeda" anywhere else, would be an admission of our own major guilt in international terrorism, or our ISI surrogates, or the Saudis. 

As far as the timely "al-CIA-da" plots to bomb trains in Canada, involving Iranian sources, anything is possible in this messed-up world    (SEE: Conservative anti-terror bill and arrests match up beautifully, don’t they: Mallick).  The big problem with this bit of terrorist news, which coincidentally supports currently debated Canadian anti-terror legislation, is that it is old news; the reported plot is at least one year old (dormant). Like all news concerning the terrorist phenomenon known as "al-CIA-da," it is all conveniently-timed hype, intended to ease the democratic transition into a total police state.  Canada is behaving like a good subservient government should act.  Ottawa is walking the rocky path to Fascism blazed by Cheney and Bush.]

“No attack was imminent and the tip was a year old.”

Iran’s unlikely Al Qaeda ties fluid, murky and deteriorating 


al-zawahiri-file-670Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. — File photo

When Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri spoke in an audio message broadcast to supporters earlier this month, he had harsh words for Iran. Its true face, he said, had been unmasked by its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against fighters loyal to Al Qaeda.

Yet it is symptomatic of the peculiar relationship between Tehran and Al Qaeda that in the same month Canadian police would accuse “Al Qaeda elements in Iran” of backing a plot to derail a passenger train.

Shia Muslim Iran and strict Sunni militant group Al Qaeda are natural enemies on either side of the Muslim world’s great sectarian divide.

Yet intelligence veterans say that Iran, in pursuing its own ends, has in the past taken advantage of Al Qaeda fighters’ need to shelter or pass through its territory. It is a murky relationship that has been fluid and, say some in the intelligence community, has deteriorated in recent years.

“I wouldn’t even call it a marriage of convenience. It’s an association of convenience,” said Richard Barrett, former head of counter-terrorism for Britain’s MI6 Secret Intelligence Service and later head of the UN Security Council’s monitoring team maintaining the world body’s Al Qaeda and Taliban sanctions blacklists.

“It’s not a strategic alliance. An Al Qaeda presence may suit the Iranians because it allows them to keep an eye on them, it gives them leverage in the form of people who are akin to hostages,” he added.

“There has been a lot of travel between Iraq and Pakistan and I cannot imagine the Iranians are not aware of that,” he said. But it was unlikely that Iran would take the risk of actively collaborating with Al Qaeda against North America: “I don’t think the Iranians would take it kindly if it turned out that there had been plotting by Al Qaeda on their territory.”

Canadian police have said there was no sign the plot had been sponsored by the Iranian state. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Al Qaeda’s beliefs were in no way consistent with Tehran’s.

As yet, many details of the alleged plot remain unclear. However, a US government source cited a network of Al Qaeda fixers based in the Iranian city of Zahedan, close to the borders of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The source said they served as go-betweens, travel agents and financial intermediaries for Al Qaeda operatives and cells operating in Pakistan and moving through the area.

Another Western source suggested that with relations deteriorating between Iran and Al Qaeda over the civil war in Syria, Tehran had acted recently to stop fighters crossing through from Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) to join Islamist militants fighting to overthrow Assad.

“Although the relationship between Iran and Al Qaeda has always been strained, this worsened after 2011 when the two sides lined up on opposite sides in the Syrian civil war,” said Shashank Joshi, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank in London.

“Syria’s strongest rebel group is allied to Al Qaeda, and both have sharply criticised Iranian support for the Assad regime.”

It is unclear whether the planning for the alleged Canadian plot, which Canadian police said had been in the works for some time, was carried out before Syria’s war deepened the strain between Tehran and Al Qaeda.

“There has been a loosening of the ties,” said Barrett, noting that documents released after US forces caught and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011 showed the Al Qaeda leader saying he was not able to trust the Iranians at all.

“Since then we have Zawahri castigating Iran quite recently. So clearly something had gone wrong.”

Iranian control far from clear

If indeed the Al Qaeda network was based in and around Zahedan — which lies on the main road to Pakistan and is the capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province — it is far from clear how easy it would be for Iran to control.

The region is home to a toxic mix of drug smuggling, illicit trade and gun-running by insurgents. Afghan refugees long ago crowded into poor neighborhoods on the outskirts of Zahedan, although Iran, like Pakistan, periodically tries to push them out, arguing they are a security risk.

Iranian authorities have also been battling a Sunni insurgency of their own in recent years by ethnic Baloch complaining of discrimination. The Jundollah group has claimed several attacks including a bombing that killed 42 people in 2009 — there is no sign it is linked to Al Qaeda, though it is often confused with a Pakistan-based group of the same name.

At the same time, on the Pakistan side of the border, Pakistani security forces are fighting an insurgency by secular Baloch separatists, while Al-Qaeda linked militants in the Sunni sectarian Lashkar-i-Jhangvi group have carried out a string of attacks against the Shia population there.

Pragmatic approach

Despite a common Western misconception that Iran, as the pre-eminent Shia power, is motivated by religion, it has always been much more pragmatic in pursuing its national interest, analysts and diplomats say, allowing it to turn a blind eye to Sunni Al Qaeda using its territory.

“The thing that has stymied people is that ‘Al Qaeda is Sunni and the rest of the people we are talking about here are Shia. They don’t mix and match.’ Well, they do. And they do it whenever they want to. They just look the other way,” said Nick Pratt, a retired US Marines colonel and CIA officer now with the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.

Before the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Iran cooperated with India and Russia against the Pakistan-backed Taliban then in power in Kabul. When Al Qaeda members fled Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban, it detained them under house arrest in Tehran.

“Since 9/11 a number of senior Al Qaeda figures including one of Osama bin Laden’s sons and senior commander and strategist Saif al Adel made their way to Iran,” said Nigel Inkster, former director of operations for Britain’s MI6.

“They were detained under quite strict conditions by the Iranian authorities who subsequently sought to use them as a bargaining chip with the US government in their ongoing dispute about Iran’s nuclear program,” added Inkster, who is now director of Transnational Threats and Political Risk at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Vahid Brown, a US-based researcher who has written extensively on Al Qaeda, said in an article on the Jihadica website earlier this year that the men who fled to Iran constituted a dissident faction within Al Qaeda, which in recent years had become increasingly vocal in their criticism of Osama and Zawahiri.

Divided by their views on the advisability of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, broadly speaking, “the pro-9/11 group, including bin Laden and Zawahiri, fled to Pakistan, while the anti-9/11 group ended up in Iran, where they were placed under house arrest by Iranian authorities,” he wrote.

Iran had been willing to cooperate with the United States on Afghanistan initially, but relations soured after Tehran was denounced by then President George W. Bush as part of the “axis of evil” in 2002 and worsened further after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Later, analysts say, Tehran allowed Al Qaeda members — among them Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — to transit through Iran.

But Iran has been vulnerable to Al Qaeda as well. After one of its diplomats was kidnapped in Pakistan some years ago it released some of the Al Qaeda members it had under house arrest in exchange for his freedom, according to Pakistani media reports.

“About 18 months ago the Iranians released most if not all of those they were holding, for reasons still not entirely clear,” said Inkster.

“There may well be a residual AQ presence in Iran though I would be cautious about presenting it as something very structured or hierarchic,” he added.

“AQ is far from being the organisation it once was and what matters more are relationships between like-minded individuals. And that may well be what we are seeing in the Canada case. There seems to be no evidence of Iranian official involvement.”

Tsarnaev Brothers Are Russian NOT Chechen–Father Anzor Tsarnaev, “What Chechnya. They never lived in Chechnya.”

Tamerlan Tsarnayev


[False flag nature of Boston attack starting to come to light.  The boys were Russian, not Chechen; the youngest boy had never even attended a mosque.  The fake rumors about Chechnya surfaced almost immediately after the attacks, almost as if they were already the new narrative waiting in the wings.  It didn't matter anymore, if the strain of "al-Qaeda" came from the Middle East or Central Asia.  In fact, there had to be some new terror attack upon Americans implicating "al-Qaeda in the Stans," since the new focus was already upon the CA region as the next target region.  The Boston false flag event was clearly Obama's plot to force Putin onto his side in terror war, just as the school shootings were done to convince all good Americans that giving-up our guns was the best defense against insane or criminal killers?]

Anzor Tsarnaev: I am a supporter of Kadyrov. My sons did not tell anything about Chechnya’s independence


Father of the Tsarnaev brothers said in an interview to the Chechen Service of the American Radio Liberty that his sons were framed by security services.

“This is pure staging. Someone did that on purpose. I do not know why this is done. I know my children. How can a man who has never prayed go and blow up something?.. The older son went to a mosque. We were often visited by security services which asked on his thoughts and ideas and the stuff … And the younger never even prayed“.

Answering a question if his son spoke about the independence of Chechnya, Anzor Tsarnaev literally exploded:

“What Chechnya. They never lived in Chechnya. They never had this in the head. There is no Chechnya, what independence? Especially since I’m a supporter of Kadyrov, what independence are you talking about? … I lived for 10 years in America, returned home to die, so I was not dragged out here and there… It’s all staging…”

Meanwhile, the wounded Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was eventually caught after many hours of confrontation in the suburbs of Boston. US authorities reported that he was injured. However, no exact information about his condition was given.

News agencies report that Obama had a telephone conversation with Putin. A statement by the White House said that Putin expressed his condolences to the families of the victims in Boston, and Obama praised the Kremlin’s ringleader for “close cooperation that the United States received from Russia on counter terrorism, including in the wake of the Boston attack”.

In turn, FBI officials told news agencies that in 2011, security forces at a request of an unnamed foreign country questioned Tamerlan Tsarnaev – the older of the two brothers. During this conversation, Tsarnaev said nothing suspicious.

Tsarnaev brothers are a product not so much of Chechnya, but rather of the Chechen diaspora, commented on the situation for the BBC News Prof. Matthew Payne at Emory University in Atlanta. The Tsarnaevs fled from “fierce Russian-Chechen wars of the 1990s and early 2000s”, he said.

Meanwhile, people who knew the brothers describe them in a positive way:

A student named Zach Boyer, who lived in the dormitory next door to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, told the BBC News that he was “a pretty nice person”. “I saw him all the time. He was often in my room… He did wrestling and played soccer. He was much liked”.

BBC News also reports that “high school friends of Tamerlan describe him as nice, sociable and funny. That was in 2006. Did he change recently? What happened?”.

It is to be recalled that, according to American authorities, Tamerlan Tsarnaev traveled to Russia and spent six months there, and then returned to America.

According to the New York Times and CBS News, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, his mother and father got US citizenship last year. Tamerlan Tsarnaev also filed an application for the US citizenship, his papers have been half filled.

Department of Monitoring
Kavkaz Center

Pakistan Blames Karzai for Refusing Fake American/Pakistani Negotiations With “Taliban Leaders”

[Karzai seems to be doing his best to disengage Western forces from his country and to cut through all of the bullshit surrounding the shady American plans to use Pakistan to "negotiate reconciliation" with secondary and retired Taliban leaders.  Pakistan is serving as Obama's little puppet to ensure Western dominance of the region.  All of their "good faith gestures" of turning loose lower-level Taliban is meaningless, since they have only one one truly valuable Taliban leader, operational commander of all of the Taliban, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a.k.a., "Mullah Brother."  Pakistan originally grabbed him and his underlings to stop the ongoing tribal negotiations between Baradar and Hamid Karzai, both of whom belong to the the Popolzai tribe.  According to this report from Radio Netherlands Worldwide (SEE:  Mullah Baradar: friend or foe?), they had been covertly meeting in Kabul and possibly even in Dubai.  Baradar was reported to have intervened with the Taliban in 2001 to save Karzai's life during early negotiations.  This "Brother" to Karzai is the Number Two Taliban.  Until Pakistan either frees him or facilitates talks between them, the government of Musharraf will be waiting in the wings to restore the pre-2001 status quo to Afghanistan and to the region.  Pakistan's so-called leaders cannot possibly lie their way to peace once again.] 

Pakistan sees Afghanistan’s Karzai as obstacle to peace with Taliban


Afghan President Hamid Karzai—AFP Photo

Afghan President Hamid Karzai—AFP Photo

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan, seen as critical to efforts to stabilise Afghanistan, is finding it difficult to work with President Hamid Karzai due to mistrust and is reaching out to others to advance the peace process, senior Pakistani Foreign Ministry officials say.

Pakistan is uniquely positioned to promote reconciliation in neighboring Afghanistan because of its long history of ties to militant groups fighting to topple Karzai.

But Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of backing the Taliban to further its aims, fearful it will try to install a pro-Islamabad government in Kabul, a charge Pakistan denies.

“Right now, Karzai is the biggest impediment to the peace process,” a top Pakistani Foreign Ministry official told Reuters. “In trying to look like a savior, he is taking Afghanistan straight to hell.”

Karzai has said he wants peace on his own terms and could also be worried that the United States might cut a quick and risky deal with the Taliban, eager to get the bulk of its forces out of the country by the end of next year.

Either way, Pakistani officials say they are discouraged by what they call Karzai’s erratic statements and provocations, apparently designed to make him appear more decisive at home in dealing with the unpopular war, now in its 12th year.

Failure to reach an agreement between the Afghan government and insurgents would increase the chances of prolonged instability and even a push by the Taliban to seize power. The last time they did it, in 1996, it was with Pakistani help.

The stakes are also high for Pakistan, a strategic US ally seen as vital to Washington’s global war on militancy. It fears turmoil in Afghanistan could spill over the border and energize homegrown militants seeking to topple the government.

“I have absolutely no doubt that there will be complete chaos in Afghanistan if a settlement is not reached by 2014,” said the Foreign Ministry official. “Afghanistan will erupt. And when that happens, Pakistan will have to pay.”

Pakistan and Afghanistan have long been suspicious of each other. A recent period of warmer relations raised hopes they could work together to lure the Taliban to negotiations.

Aziz Khan, a former Pakistan ambassador to Afghanistan, said it was not right to pin all the blame on Karzai.

“Everyone is hedging their bets at this point: the Pakistanis, the US, the Afghan government and the Taliban,” he said. “No one has been clear about what they want in Afghanistan.”

Although Pakistan will maintain contacts with Karzai, it is stepping up engagements with opposition figures, the Taliban, Washington and other parties to promote reconciliation, Foreign Ministry officials said.

“There is no other option but reconciliation – with or without Karzai,” said the top Foreign Ministry official. “If he continues to be this stubborn, him and his High Peace Council will naturally be sidelined.”

 Afghan Say Karzai Committed to Peace

A second senior Pakistani Foreign Ministry official cited several examples of how Karzai has blocked peace efforts. At a conference in January, for example, Karzai insisted there would be no more “back door” peace contacts.

The official also accused Karzai of delaying the opening of a Taliban office in Qatar that could be used in the reconciliation efforts. He did not say why.

Afghan officials say Karzai is fully committed to the peace process, but wants to ensure it is Afghan-driven.

Responding to the accusation that Karzai is an obstacle to peace, an Afghan government official said: “We totally reject this. It is a baseless allegation.”

Analysts say Pakistan has a long-standing fear of an Afghan government close to its old foe, India. Karzai has said “no foreign elements or entities should attempt to own Afghan peace efforts”. He also warned: “I am not going to allow other attempts to succeed.”

So far, Karzai has failed to secure direct talks with the Taliban. He has repeatedly asked for Pakistan’s support. Pakistan has helped Taliban representatives to travel to Qatar to make contacts with US officials.

At the same time, Pakistan has been building bridges with the Northern Alliance, a constellation of anti-Taliban figures who have traditionally been implacable critics of Islamabad, and close to India.

But Kabul wants Pakistan to hand over top Afghan Taliban leaders which could prove useful in the peace process.

“All Taliban leadership are sitting in Pakistan. We need full cooperation of Pakistan in order for them to be allowed to travel and be allowed to talk,” Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmay Rassoul told a news conference in Sydney.
Karzai’s remarks during interviews and in meetings with Pakistani officials have led Islamabad to conclude he has become too inflexible. They cite Karzai’s recent accusation that the United States was colluding with the Taliban.

“What does Karzai have to show for his effort to bring insurgents to the table? We’ve released prisoners. We’ve facilitated talks,” said another senior Foreign Ministry official.

Late last year, Pakistan released more than two dozen Taliban prisoners who could help promote peace. It was the clearest signal ever that Pakistan had put its weight behind the Afghan reconciliation process.

Pakistan’s army chief has also made reconciling warring Afghan factions a priority, military sources say.

After the prisoner releases, Afghan officials said Pakistan shared Kabul’s goal of transforming the insurgency into a political movement. Such remarks signaled unprecedented optimism from Kabul.

“Joker In The Pack”

But despite that, old suspicions that Pakistan uses Afghan insurgents as proxies to counter the influence of India have not been laid to rest.

Some Afghan officials believe Pakistan may still be hedging its bets and that even the prisoner releases were just a way to retain influence over the Taliban.
“The key fact here is that Pakistan has been investing in this dirty game of trying to control Afghanistan for the last thirty years through terrorist proxies,” said a senior Afghan government official.

“It is now trying to reap the harvest of its investments by waiting for what they see as the inevitable complete departure of the international community from Afghanistan and keeping their proxy assets, primarily the Taliban, for the post-2014 period.”

During talks last month at British Prime Minister David Cameron’s official country residence, Chequers, Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari agreed to consult on future Afghan Taliban prisoner releases.

But Pakistani officials now complain that Karzai does not appreciate the goodwill gestures.

Another Pakistani Foreign Ministry official said the government was incensed by an interview Karzai gave to the British press after the Chequers meeting in which he said the peace process was being impeded by “external forces acting in the name of the Taliban”, a veiled reference to Islamabad.

So exasperated was Pakistan with Karzai that at a meeting this month between Zardari, the army chief and senior officials, one top leader described Karzai as “the joker in the pack”, according to an official who attended.

“He is trying to act as if he has many cards in his hands,” said the first Foreign Ministry official. “But he should realize he is only hurting his country.”

CIA “Not Supplying” Heavy Weapons To Syrian Terrorists, But Teaching Them How To Use Them

[Notice the red Saudi-colored headscarves.--SOURCE]

CIA Expands Role in Syria Fight

Wall St. Journal


Agency Feeds Intelligence to Rebel Fighters, in Move That Deepens U.S. Involvement in Conflict


The Central Intelligence Agency is expanding its role in the campaign against the Syrian regime by feeding intelligence to select rebel fighters to use against government forces, current and former U.S. officials said.

The move is part of a U.S. effort to stem the rise of Islamist extremists in Syria by aiding secular forces, U.S. officials said, amid fears that the fall of President Bashar al-Assad would enable al Qaeda to flourish in Syria.


The expanded CIA role bolsters an effort by Western intelligence agencies to support the Syrian opposition with training in areas including weapons use, urban combat and countering spying by the regime.

The move comes as the al Nusra Front, the main al Qaeda-linked group operating in Syria, is deepening its ties to the terrorist organization’s central leadership in Pakistan, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials.

The provision of actionable intelligence to small rebel units which have been vetted by the CIA represents an increase in U.S. involvement in the two-year-old conflict, the officials said. The CIA would neither confirm nor deny any role in providing training or intelligence to the Syrian rebels.

The new aid to rebels doesn’t change the U.S. decision to not take direct military action. President Barack Obama last year rejected a CIA-backed proposal to provide arms to secular units fighting Mr. Assad, and on Friday he reiterated his argument that doing so could worsen the bloodshed.

He also warned that Mr. Assad’s fall could empower extremists. “I am very concerned about Syria becoming an enclave for extremism because extremists thrive in chaos, they thrive in failed states, they thrive in power vacuums,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Amman, Jordan.

The new CIA effort reflects a change in the administration’s approach that aims to strengthen secular rebel fighters in hope of influencing which groups dominate in post-Assad Syria, U.S., European and Arab officials said.

The CIA has sent officers to Turkey to help vet rebels that receive arms shipments from Gulf allies, but administration officials say the results have been mixed, citing concerns about weapons going to Islamists. In Iraq, the CIA has been directed by the White House to work with elite counterterrorism units to help the Iraqis counter the flow of al Qaeda-linked fighters across the border with Syria.

The West favors fighters aligned with the Free Syrian Army, which supports the Syrian Opposition Coalition political group.

Syrian opposition commanders said the CIA has been working with British, French and Jordanian intelligence services to train rebels on the use of various kinds of weapons. A senior Western official said the intelligence agencies are providing the rebels with urban combat training as well as teaching them how to properly use antitank weapons against Syrian bunkers.

The agencies are also teaching counterintelligence tactics to help prevent pro-Assad agents from infiltrating the opposition, the official said.

Among other U.S. activities on the margins of the conflict, the Pentagon is helping train Jordanian forces to counter the threat posed by Syria’s chemical weapons, but isn’t working directly with rebels, defense officials say.

The extent of the CIA effort to provide intelligence to Syrian rebels remains cloaked in secrecy. The U.S. has an array of intelligence capabilities in the region, mainly on the periphery of the conflict.

The U.S. uses satellites and other surveillance systems to collect intelligence on Syrian troop and aircraft movements as well as weapons depots. Officials say powerful radar arrays in Turkey are likewise used to track Syrian ballistic missiles and can pinpoint launch sites.

The U.S. also relies on Israeli and Jordanian spy agencies, which have extensive spy networks inside Syria, U.S. and European officials said.

The current level of intelligence sharing is limited in scope because the CIA doesn’t know whether it can fully trust fighters with the most sensitive types of information, several U.S. and European officials said. The CIA, for example, isn’t sharing information on where U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies believe the Syrian government keeps its chemical weapons, officials said.

Rebel leaders and some U.S. lawmakers say more robust U.S. support is needed to turn the tide in the civil war. These officials say the CIA’s current role comes as too little, too late to make a decisive difference in the war.

In a letter to Mr. Obama this week, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, joined Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in calling for the president to take “more active steps to stop the killing in Syria and force Bashar al-Assad to give up power.”

Sens. Levin and McCain urged the White House to consider using precision airstrikes to take out Mr. Assad’s air force and Scud missile batteries, among other military options.

The CIA got a green light from the White House last year to look for ways to provide limited support to the rebels, current and former officials said. But officials say the ramp-up has been slow, in part because of the difficulty of identifying reliable partners among the Syrian opposition to work with the U.S.

A senior U.S. official said the decision to provide actionable intelligence to vetted rebel units “shows that we’re working on the humanitarian level and the diplomatic level and on the intelligence level.”

“This would be a more direct level of engagement on the intelligence front,” the official added.

Officials said one of the advantages of providing actionable intelligence to rebel units is that such information is generally of operational use for a limited period because would-be targets move around the battlefield.

Arms, in contrast, can be used for years and passed between groups, reducing U.S. control over where they end up.

The shift in part reflects growing Israeli concerns about the limited ability of the U.S. to shape the outcome in Syria. In recent months, Israeli officials have privately pressed their European and American counterparts to strengthen secular forces in Syria because of concerns that the al Nusra Front will become more entrenched the longer the civil war drags on, according to Israeli and European officials.

Israeli officials are concerned that the U.S. reluctance to more directly intervene will limit Washington’s leverage in a post-Assad Syria. “Israel would welcome America’s influence in shaping the post-Assad Syria” said a senior Israeli official involved in deliberations on the neighboring Arab country.

U.S. and European officials said they fear that the al Nusra Front, which has seized control of swaths of northern Syria, could dominate the country once Mr. Assad falls.

U.S. counterterrorism officials said they have seen a growth in communications among operatives from al Nusra Front, al Qaeda in Iraq and al Qaeda’s central leadership in Pakistan. Officials also report growing numbers of al Qaeda fighters traveling from Pakistan to Syria to join the fight with al Nusra.

The ties to al Qaeda’s central operations have become so significant that U.S. counterterrorism officials are debating whether al Nusra should now be considered its own al Qaeda affiliate instead of an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq, as it has generally been viewed within the U.S. government, according to a person familiar with the debate.

Al Nusra is “an organization that resembles an army more than a quaint little terrorist group,” said Seth Jones, an al Qaeda specialist at the Rand Corp. think tank in Washington. “As this war drags on against Assad and as long as they are able to build up their capabilities, it’s going to make it all the more harder to target them once the regime falls.”

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com, Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com and Nour Malas at nour.malas@dowjones.com

Another “Zombie” Terrorist Leader Comes Back from the Dead–This One In Pakistan

[Strange that they could capture this militant leader, since Qari Basit was allegedly killed "in the Tarkhel area" of the same town on September 24, 2011.  Nearly every "al-Qaeda" or Taliban leader reported killed by the controlled "legitimate press" has been killed at fortunate junctures in the past (SEE: Chad Claims It Has Killed “Al-CIA-da” Mastermind of Cigarette Smuggling ).]

TTP leader, foreigner captured in Nowshera


Taliban. — Reuters/File Photo

NOWSHERA: The ‘operational commander’ of the banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Qari Basit, and an unknown foreigner were arrested by personnel of intelligence agencies in Kheshgi town of Nowshera district on Wednesday.

Sources said the two were arrested in a joint raid conducted by security forces and police at a house in Kheshgi. They were taken to an unknown place.

The sources claimed that the two men had arrived in Nowshera on a special mission to attack Provincial Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain.

District Police Officer Muhammad Hussain said a suspected man had been arrested but rejected the report that Qari Basit and his foreign accomplice had been captured.

The sources said that Qari Basit was wanted by police in several cases of suicide bombing and attacks on government installations in different areas of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Fake Letter from the Bin Laden Impersonator Killed In Abbottabad

[Comparing this alleged letter, supposedly written by the long-dead terrorist, bin Laden, we can easily see that this reputed letter from Abbottabad is a complete fraud.  Nowhere in the fake new evidence, produced from the fake Special Forces raid, does this sound like the words of the man who issued his Fatwa against the "Zionist-Crusaders" in August 1996 (SEE:  Bin Laden's Fatwa--Aug. 23, 1996).  By the way, bin Laden does not even use the Word "Qaeda" at all, in the older example.  The fake letter is absent the real bin Laden's reverence for his faith.  The new guy doesn't even bother writing a traditional Muslim blessing whenever mentioning the Holy Prophet, such as "Peace be unto Him."  In the Fatwa the real bin Laden blesses The Prophet by saying "ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM" (in all capitals) 32 times.  The fake bin Laden uses the word "thus" 9 times in his short letter, even though Usama never says the word once in his entire Fatwa.  

We are asked to swallow a whole load of bullshit, in order to allow them to flesh-out their imaginary union of international terrorists.  As if to reinforce the narrative that we are under attack from an international Islamist entity, the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society recently released a 700 page report called, Al-Qaeda in the United States: A Complete Analysis of Terrorism Offences, which purports to document years of overlooked "terror attacks" which supposedly have happened since 2001.  We have allegedly been overlooking countless terrorist events, writing-up terrorist as regular crimes.  Like everything else in this phony terror war, the image of "al-Qaeda" is created by mislabeling crimes by other people who have nothing to do with the imaginary terrorist international, as "al-Qaeda related."  The rhetorical neocon tome is supposed to open our eyes to what we have overlooked or misunderstood.  It is nonsense, intended to make its argument by sheer weight.  The pdf available at the link given is, thankfully, only 107 pages.]

Letters from Abbottabad: Bin Ladin Sidelined?

CTC–Combating Terrorism Center at West Point


Authors: Don Rassler, Gabriel Koehler-Derrick, Liam Collins, Muhammad al-Obaidi, Nelly Lahoud

This report is a study of 17 de-classified documents captured during the Abbottabad raid and released to the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). They consist of electronic letters or draft letters, totaling 175 pages in the original Arabic and 197 pages in the English translation. The earliest is dated September 2006 and the latest April 2011.  These internal al-Qa`ida communications were authored by several  leaders, most prominently Usama bin Ladin.  In contrast to his public statements that focused on the injustice of those he believed to be the “enemies” of Muslims, namely corrupt “apostate” Muslim rulers and their Western “overseers,” the focus of Bin Ladin’s private letters is Muslims’ suffering at the hands of his jihadi “brothers”. He is at pain advising them to abort domestic attacks that cause Muslim civilian casualties and focus on the United States, “our desired goal.” Bin Ladin’s frustration with regional jihadi groups and his seeming inability to exercise control over their actions and public statements is the most compelling story to be told on the basis of the 17 de-classified documents. “Letters from Abbottabad” is an initial exploration and contextualization of 17 documents that will be the grist for future academic debate and discussion

This letter was authored by Usama bin Ladin and addressed to Shaykh Mahmud (`Atiyya Abdul Rahman) on 27 August 2010. Mahmud is specifically directed to tell ‚Basir,‛ who is Nasir al-Wuhayshi (Abu Basir), the leader of al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula, to remain in his role (presumably in response to a request from Abu Basir that Anwar al-`Awlaqi take his position), and for him to send ‚us a detailed and lengthy‛ version of al-`Awlaqi’s resume. `Atiyya is also told to ask Basir and Anwar al-`Awlaqi for their ‚vision in detail about the situation‛ in Yemen. References are also made in the letter to the 2010 floods in Pakistan, a letter from Bin Ladin’s son Khalid to `Abd al-Latif, al-Qa`ida’s media plan for the 9/11 anniversary, and the need for the ‚brothers coming from Iran‛ to be placed in safe locations.

Page 1 of 4
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Praise be to God, Lord of the universe, and peace and prayers be
upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and all of his companions
Now then…
To the noble brother, Shaykh Mahmud, may God protect him
Peace be upon you, God’s Mercy and Blessings
I hope you receive this message of mine while you, your family,
children, and all of the brothers are in good health.
– With regard to what you had mentioned in a previous message,
that some brothers may go to Iran as part of a plan to protect
the brother, thus I see that Iran is not suitable. Also, when
choosing the areas where the brothers will be inside Pakistan
it’s necessary to take into consideration that they are not
areas that encountered floods or may encounter them in the
– With regard to the brothers coming from Iran, thus I see, at
this stage, that they be at safe locations outside the areas
being attacked.
– Regarding what’s related to Pakistan, thus I didn’t take a
look at the report you mentioned. However, the opinion in
general is to be concerned with calming things down and focusing
efforts on the Americans.
– With regard to what pertains to appointing the brothers in the
administrative positions, thus I see that they pledge an
allegiance that would include some points, which would protect
the work and its secrets. Therefore, I hope that you all
deliberate concerning the matter and inform me of your opinion,
and amongst the proposed points, for example:
1- Listening, obedience, and Jihad so as to bring back the
Page 2 of 4
2- Protect operational secrets.
3- Protect the work he is going to be responsible for, and
provide advice to the leadership.
– Regarding what brother Basir mentioned relating to Anwar al-
‘Awlaqi, it would be excellent if you inform him, on my behalf
in a private message to him, to remain in his position where he
is qualified and capable of running the matter in Yemen.
Therefore, he shall continue, by the blessings of God, as he has
the characteristics that makes him capable of that.
Additionally, the presence of some of the characteristics by our
brother Anwar al-‘Awlaqi is a good thing, in order to serve
Jihad, and how excellent would it be if he gives us a chance to
be introduced to him more.
– Also, I hope that he be informed of us still needing more
information from the battlefield in Yemen, so that it is
feasible for us, with the help of God, to make the most
appropriate decision to either escalate or calm down. And with
regard to informing us of the situations by them, thus I hope
that brother Basir writes me his vision in detail about the
situations and also asks brother Anwar al-‘Awlaqi to write his
vision in detail in a separate message, as well as brother Abu-
Sufyan Sa’id al-Shahri, to send his vision in detail and
How excellent would it be if you ask brother Basir to send us
the resume, in detail and lengthy, of brother Anwar al-‘Awlaqi,
as well as the facts he relied on when recommending him, while
informing him that his recommendation is considered. However, we
would like to be reassured more. For example, we here become
reassured of the people when they go to the line and get
examined there.
Page 3 of 4
Also, I hope that brother Basir be informed that the media
appearance is his task, and in general, they should reduce the
appearance during this period unless necessary, and if necessity
calls for one of the brothers to issue a speech, thus Basir
should review it before it’s broadcasted in the media. It shall
be pointed out, whereas you didn’t point out, that the speech of
brother Sa’id al-Shahri that was issued about the apprehension
of one of the sisters in Saudi was not appropriate at the time.
With regard to what you mentioned in a previous message,
regarding your opinion to reduce the correspondence, thus we are
concerned with the security aspect, yet I have a tape for the
nation that includes instigation of the people of Iraq and
preaching to the Awakenings to return to the Mujahidin. I am
going to send it, God willing, the next time, thus you can
arrange with the courier to have the card that’s going to
contain this statement delivered to the media section directly,
and if a necessary matter develops, we are going to attach to
you a message that will be sent to you by the media section.
– Attached with this message is a visual statement to the
American people that I hope a copy of it be given to the
International Al Jazeera and the Arab Al Jazeera. I also hope
for it to be translated (voice over) to English and to be
delivered to the Al Jazeera channel prior to the anniversary of
9/11, to be broadcasted during it. Also, two copies of it are
attached, one of which is recorded and the other written.
– We sent you, along with the messages that preceded this, a
statement regarding the floods of Pakistan. Its broadcasting to
media was delayed, thus perhaps it’s for a good reason. However,
in any case, I had attached the content of this card to this
– Note: Please broadcast the flood statement before the American
People statement, as the American People statement to be during
the anniversary of 9/11.
– Attached is a message from my son Khalid to brother ‘Abd-al-
Latif, and a message to the brothers in the media section.
Page 4 of 4
In conclusion, I ask God, the Glorified and Almighty, to protect
you and to make you successful towards what He loves and is
satisfied with, and the last of our prayers is praise be to God,
Lord of the Universe, and peace and prayers be upon our Prophet
Muhammad, his family, and all of his companions.
Peace be upon you, God’s Mercy and Blessings
17 Ramadan 1431 Hijri (TN: 27 August 2010)
(TN: End of translation)

Afghan Govt. Condemns Pak Army Support for Cleric’s Blessing of Afghan, Kashmir and Palestinian Suicide-Bombing

[SEE:  Afghan president lashes out at Pakistan ]

Palestine is occupied by Israel, Kashmir by India, and Afghanistan by the US. So if the Muslims don’t have the atomic bomb, they should sacrifice their lives for God,” Tahir Ashrafi, the head of the Pakistan Ulema Council, told TOLOnews.


Afghanistan condemn Pakistani Ulema’s Fatwa on suicide attack


By Ghanizada

large-Hafiz Tahir Ashrafi addresses a press conference

Maulana Tahir Asharfi—This is the fat Wahhabi bastard who issued the “fat” wa.  He is not only notorious for his advanced capacity for gluttony, but for being caught passed-out drunk and covered in puke in the back seat of his car, after tying one on at the German Embassy in Islamabad.  The lying fuck claimed that he was not drunk, but had been “kidnapped” by mysterious individuals, who had “injected him with intoxicating medicine.”Afghan National Security Adviser criticized Pakistan religious scholar Maulana Ashraf Tahiri’s remarks regarding the suicide attack and holy war which is permitted in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine.

Maulana Tahir Ashrafi said suicide attack and Jihad (holy war) is permitted in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine which was widely condemned in Afghanistan.

Rangin Dadfar Spanta, national security adviser for president Hamid Karzai on Saturday said the Fatwa by Pakistani religious scholar chief shows the mainstream of violence which threatens the peaceful lives of the Afghan people.

Maulana Tahir Ashrafi’s remarks were also widely condemned by various political movements, religious clerics and civil activists in the country.

Afghan religious scholars said such attacks are not allowed in Islam and accused Pakistan’s military intelligence for being involved in issuing such a Fatwa.

In the meantime Rangin Dadfar Spanta called on various political and civil movements in the country to stand against the Pakistani religious scholar’s Fatwa.

He said, “Our political opposition movements, the civil society and other prominent Afghan leaders should unitedly stand to defend our country and our soil and let those know, who are sending the suicide bombers that the Afghan people will never be defeated by these bombers.”

The National Coalition of Afghanistan — main political opposition coalition of the Afghan government also condemned the Fatwa by Pakistani religious scholar and said such remarks will further boost war in the region.

This comes as the Afghan security institutions, specifically the National Directorate of Security (NDS) warned that all the suicide bombers coming in Afghanistan are being trained in Pakistan.

The Fatwa by Pakistani religious scholar chief comes amid Pakistani clerics decision to boycott a regional Islamic conference in capital Kabul. The religious scholars of the two nations were due to discuss suicide attacks and Jihad (holy war) during the conference.

On the other hand there are concerns that the latest Fatwa by Pakistani religious scholar chief will flame more violence in Afghanistan.

Zionist Press Pushing Claim That Syrian Rebels Have Captured Scuds Armed With Chemical Warheads

Islamist Syrian rebels reportedly seize Scud missiles

Deputy PM says Israel is tracking developments but sees no immediate danger, adds that ‘when we identified a threat, we took action along the border and elsewhere’

Chad Claims It Has Killed “Al-CIA-da” Mastermind of Cigarette Smuggling

[This is the second time that this guy has reportedly been killed in Mali (SEE:  The terrorist Belmokhtar, Number 1 AQIM in the Sahel, killed by the MNLA Gao).  The problem with him and all of the other terrorist leaders who somehow manage to get themselves killed multiple times (like bin Laden), is that their pictures change after their first deaths.  Below we have photos collected by Google before this latest row, showing the 2012 rebel leader and the new 2013 guy.]

Mokhtar Belmokhtar AQMI (al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb)  Leaders belmokhtar

Mokhtar 2013 2 [Is this really the same guy?]

Chad says it killed Algeria hostage mastermind in Mali 

By Madjiasra Nako

N’DJAMENA (Reuters) – Chadian soldiers in Mali have killed Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the al Qaeda commander who masterminded a bloody hostage-taking at an Algerian gas plant in January, Chad’s military said on Saturday.

The death of one of the world’s most wanted jihadists would be a major blow to al Qaeda in the region and to Islamist rebels already forced to flee towns they had seized in northern Mali by an offensive by French and African troops.

“On Saturday, March 2, at noon, Chadian armed forces operating in northern Mali completely destroyed a terrorist base. … The toll included several dead terrorists, including their leader Mokhtar Belmokhtar,” Chad’s armed forces said in a statement read on national television.

On Friday, Chad’s president, Idriss Deby, said his soldiers had killed another al Qaeda commander, Adelhamid Abou Zeid, among 40 militants who died in an operation in the same area as Saturday’s assault – Mali’s Adrar des Ifoghas mountains near the Algerian border.

France – which has used jet strikes against the militants’ mountain hideouts – has declined to confirm the killing of either Abou Zeid or Belmokhtar.

In Washington, an Obama administration said the White House could not confirm the killing of Belmokhtar.

Analysts said the death of two of al Qaeda’s most feared commanders in the Sahara desert would mark a significant blow to Mali’s Islamist rebellion.

“Both men have extensive knowledge of northern Mali and parts of the broader Sahel and deep social and other connections in northern Mali, and the death of both in such a short amount of time will likely have an impact on militant operations,” said Andrew Lebovich, a Dakar-based analyst who follows al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

Anne Giudicelli, managing director of security consultancy Terrorisc, said the al Qaeda commanders’ deaths – if confirmed – would temporarily disrupt the Islamist rebel network but would also raise concern over the fate of seven French hostages believed to be held by Islamists in northern Mali.

Chad is one of several African nations that have contributed forces to a French-led military intervention in Mali aimed at ridding its vast northern desert of Islamist rebels who seized the area nearly a year ago following a coup in the capital.

Western and African countries are worried that al Qaeda could use the zone to launch international attacks and strengthen ties with African Islamist groups like al Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria.


Belmokhtar, 40, who lost an eye while fighting in Afghanistan in the 1990s, claimed responsibility for the seizure of dozens of foreign hostages at the In Amenas gas plant in Algeria in January in which more than 60 people were killed.

That attack put Algeria back on the map of global jihad, 20 years after its civil war, a bloody Islamist struggle for power. It also burnished Belmokhtar’s jihadi credentials by showing that al Qaeda remained a potent threat to Western interests despite U.S. forces killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011.

Before In Amenas, some intelligence experts had assumed Algerian-born Belmokhtar had drifted away from jihad in favor of kidnapping and smuggling weapons and cigarettes in the Sahara where he earned the nickname “Marlboro Man”.

In a rare interview with a Mauritanian news service in late 2011, Belmokhtar paid homage to bin Laden and his successor, Ayman al-Zawahri. He cited al Qaeda’s traditional global preoccupations, including Iraq, Afghanistan and the fate of the Palestinians, and stressed the need to “attack Western and Jewish economic and military interests”.

He shared command of field operations for AQIM – al Qaeda’s North African franchise – with Abou Zeid, although there was talk the two did not get along and were competing for power.

A former smuggler turned jihadi, Algerian-born Abou Zeid imposed a violent form of sharia, Islamic law, in the ancient desert town of Timbuktu, including amputations and the destruction of ancient Sufi shrines.

Robert Fowler, a former Canadian diplomat held hostage by Belmokhtar from 2008 to 2009, told Reuters, “While I cannot consider reports of the death of both Abou Zeid and Mokhtar Belmokhtar as anything but good news … I must temper my enthusiasm by the fact that this is by no means the first time Belmokhtar’s death has been reported.”

President Francois Hollande said on Friday that the assault to retake Mali’s vast desert north from AQIM and other Islamist rebels that began on January 11 was in its final stage and so could not confirm Abou Zeid’s death.

A U.S. official and a Western diplomat said, however, the reports about Abou Zeid’s death appeared to be credible.

U.S. Representative Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the killing of Belmokhtar “would be a hard blow to the collection of jihadists operating across the region that are targeting American diplomats and energy workers.”

Washington has said it believes Islamists operating in Mali were involved in the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya’s eastern city of Benghazi in September.

After its success in dislodging al Qaeda fighters from northern Mali’s towns, France and its African allies have faced a mounting wave of suicide bombings and guerrilla-style raids by Islamists in northern Malian towns.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Friday that a U.N. peacekeeping force to replace French troops in Mali should be discussed as soon as possible.

Chad was among the quickest to respond to Mali’s appeals for help alongside the French, rushing in hundreds of troops experienced in desert warfare, led by Deby’s son, General Mahamat Deby.

The country’s president may be hoping to polish his regional and international credentials by assisting in this war, while bolstering his own position in power in Chad, which has been threatened in the past by eastern neighbor Sudan.

(Additional reporting by John Irish and David Lewis in Dakar, Gus Trompiz in Paris, and Mark Hosenball and Mark Felsenthal in Washington; Writing by Richard Valdmanis; Editing by Robin Pomeroy and Peter Cooney)

Mossad Looks To Build the Bulgarian Bus Case In Cyprus

[The alleged case of a Lebanese man, bearing a Swedish passport, reconning buses in Cyprus which sometimes carried Israelis, among thousands of Goyim, is totally a Mossad/CIA set-up, with no actual evidence except for a notebook the man carried.  All articles on the Internet pertaining to the alleged case all derive from the Zionist press, either Reuters or Haaretz.   No strategic info contained there, as far as the news reports.  The NY Times is harping on the story below.]

Trial Offers Rare Look at Work of Hezbollah in Europe


LIMASSOL, Cyprus — In a little-noticed trial in a small courtroom here on Wednesday, a 24-year-old man provided a rare look inside a covert global war between Israel and Iran, admitting that he is an operative of the militant group Hezbollah, for which he acted as a courier in Europe and staked out locations in this port city that Israelis were known to frequent.

More American Pretend Negotiations with the “Taliban”–(who knows who they are really talking with, or if they are)

[The Taliban are denying that the meeting took place.  The following report claims that the meeting was allegedly with former or current Taliban leader, Tayyab Agha, the guy that the Americans have been pretending to meet with (SEE:   TOWDE KHABARE: Who Is Fazlur Rehman Representing?), claiming that he was the personal representative of Mullah Omar.  The alleged meet between Rahman and Agha, was another American production (SEE:  JUI-F Chief Fazlur Rehman Invited in US-Taliban Qatar Peace Talks: Hafiz), just the latest edition of the fake "reconciliation" talks which had been set in motion by Amb. Holbrooke and Hillary.  It is no wonder that the Pak government is disassociating  itself from the sham process (even though Rahman is known to be a Zardari puppet and an "opportunist posing as an Islamic leader") and keeping Mullah Baradar (Brother) in the wings until the real Mullah Omar is ready to talk.]

Taliban deny meeting Pakistani Islamic scholar Fazlur Rahman



Taliban deny meeting Pakistani Islamic scholar Fazlur Rahman

The Taliban militant group in Afghanistan on Wednesday denied reports regarding Taliban negotiators meeting with Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Fazlur Rehman in Qatar.

According to reports Fazlur Rehman travelled to Qatar in a bid to meet with the Taliban group representatives and “encourage the negotiators to talk to the Afghan government.”

However Taliban militant group in Afghanistan following a statement dismissed the report and termed it incorrect.

The statement further addded, “Several media outlets have reported that the head of Pakistan’s Jamiat Ulama Islam, respected Maulana Fazl Rahman, visited Qatar to meet with the respected chief and other dignitaries of Islamic Emirate’s Political office so to play the role of an intermediary for talks with the Kabul administration.”

“We must state that no members of Islamic Emirate’s Political Office nor has its respected chief met with anyone and neither do they plans to meet in the near future. All current and future reports in this regard are the personal views of the publishers which do not have any bases.” Taliban said following the statement.

In the meantime Taliban group spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said, “We want to make it categorically clear that the honourable head of the political office of the Islamic Emirate and any other member of the office in Qatar has neither met anyone nor any such meeting had been under consideration.”

However, sources close to the Taliban in Qatar, have confirmed to Pakistan’s The Express Tribune that Rehman held one round of talks with the Taliban negotiators in Qatar and that more talks are planned.

The JUI-F chief – who was earlier scheduled to return home on Tuesday – has also extended his stay in the Gulf state, the sources said.

Another JUI-F source in Pakistan, had earlier told The Express Tribune, that Rehman had gone to Qatar to meet representatives of the Afghan Taliban to “reduce gap” between the Taliban and the Karzai government.

Taliban has so far refused to hold talks with the Afghan government, which they say is powerless and installed by foreigners.

Washington Co-Conspirators Build “Al-Qaeda” Myth with Wild Claims About Their “Economic Warfare” Capabilities

by Bea Edwards ( The Whistleblogger)

House_of_RepresentativesThis week, the House of Representatives will consider the “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act,” a piece of legislation that would allow America’s intelligence agencies to share and protect the voluminous data they collect about America’s citizens with the keepers of America’s financial infrastructure, among others. An identical bill passed the House last year but died in the Senate, despite a powerful push from a curious coalition of spies, lawyers, financiers and politicians.

As an American citizen about to be shared and protected, when you see that kind of lineup behind a power play, you may fear trouble. For many months now, the bill’s campaign has been building. It began last summer with a briefing for about 50 Washington think tankers convened by former Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

That day, July 9, 2012, was a scorcher, with afternoon temperatures over 100 degrees when the audience convened in a third floor briefing room at the Senate’s Russell Office Building on Capitol Hill. Kyl had invited the American Center for Democracy (ACD) and the Economic Warfare Institute (EWI) to hold a “Super-Panel” and an open discussion on the topic of “Economic Warfare Subversions: Anticipating the Threat.”

The make up of the panel was a little peculiar; it featured a number of heavy hitters from the intelligence community, including General Michael Hayden (former director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency), James Woolsey (former CIA director), and Michael Mukasey (former Attorney General for George W. Bush). But there were others. First among them was the facilitator and director of the Economic Warfare Institute itself, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who aggressively used her academic title at every opportunity, an unusual practice in this company. Among the remaining panelists, one suggested that jihadists were setting wildfires in Colorado that summer. Another, a former Alternate Director for the U.S at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), also produced a memorable presentation by envisioning complex terror scenarios not even Hollywood could produce.

In total, the panel included Dr. Ehrenfeld and eight white men. To kick off the festivities, she approached the podium. Dr. Ehrenfeld opened her remarks with the announcement that the United States was target-rich for economic jihad, apparently a new concept for only a few of us in the audience. We the uninitiated exchanged nervous glances as Dr. Rachel went on to explain the “Cutting Edge Threats” that keep her up at night. She pointed out that both Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 15, 2008 were potentially devastating to the United States. One attack was the work of al-Qaeda, a foreign enemy, and the other was self-inflicted by the management of our own financial institutions. However, Dr. Ehrenfeld said, we could not rule out the possibility that economic terrorists were: a) responsible for, or b) learning from the economic collapse that precipitated the Great Recession. She also referenced the “flash crash” of May 6, 2010 when the Dow lost over 1000 points in a few minutes, only to regain 600 of them minutes later:

Still, two years later, the joint report by the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Committee (CFTC) did not rule out “terrorism” as a possible cause for the May 2010 “flash crash,” and the entire financial industry still has no uniform explanation of why or how this event occurred.

Quite simply, Dr. Ehrenfeld was terrifying.

EWI [Economic Warfare Institute] is of the strong opinion that threats to the U.S. economy are the next great field of battle. Indeed, we are already at economic war with such state actors as China and Iran and such non-state actors as al-Qaeda and its affiliates. The future battlefield is vast: it not only includes the realms of cyber and space but also of banking and finance, market and currency manipulation, energy, and drug trafficking. The list could go on and on.

So, EWI believes that the US faces mass terror-induced economic calamity. The fact that this has not yet occurred, she cautioned us, does not mean it isn’t going to.

Shortly thereafter, General Michael Hayden, now a principal at the Chertoff Group, a lucrative security consulting firm run by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff took the floor. General Hayden stood to speak about “The Most Dangerous Tools in the Most Dangerous Hands. How much should we fear hacktivists achieving state-like capabilities?” The answer to this rhetorical question was “a lot.” Speaking as the former director of the NSA, he told us, “You want us to go to the cyber domain to defend you. But in that domain, every advantage goes to the attacker because the environment is both insecure and indispensible.” In other words, we can’t defend you without the proper weapons.

But what would those be?

By this time, some of us were alarmed. Apparently, we are completely unprotected from flash crashing at the hands of terrorist hacktivists waging economic jihad. And the next speaker was no relief. Daniel Heath, the former US Alternate Director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and currently a Managing Director at Maxwell Stamp, broke the ice by suggesting that we imagine the following scenario:

A foreign country holding about a trillion dollars in US debt demands an arrangement to swap it for the agricultural production of California. Capital begins to flee the US. It’s Christmas, and a heavy snow storm hits the northeast, knocking out the power grid. An act of sabotage hits the Washington, D.C. metro, and a couple of assassinations occur, both high-value targets and random ones. Finally, a biochem incident or two occurs, like anthrax or something in the water supply.

Heath just kept on coming. Shadowy parties might manipulate the price of oil and a real economic crisis would occur – like the one of Sept. 15, 2008. He suggested that episode was actually a jihadist plot. Probably. Well, possibly.

What if terrorists aim to engineer a renewed financial meltdown? Is it possible? How would the financial system handle a massive attack on New York City? Is enough being done to buttress financial resilience—to limit the contagion of cascading failures throughout the economy? In what ways could different kinds of terrorist attacks succeed in destabilizing our financial sector and impair the real economy?

And just when we thought it couldn’t get worse, David Aufhauser, former General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer of the Department of the Treasury, took the floor. After his presentation – “Transnational Crime – Unholy Allies to Disorder, Terror and Proliferation” – there wasn’t a dry seat in the house (to quote Alfred Hitchcock). This guy speculated about an alliance between Iran, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and Hugo Chavez. Among them, they’ll create nuclear weapons for Venezuela. Terror, psycho crime and jihad will come together for the politically purposeful annihilation of our banks. We must identify nodes in the corruption network and break the circuitry, Aufhauser claimed. If not, we’ll have WMD at our ATMs.

After a few more interventions, Mukasey wrapped it all up as the final speaker. He was talking about “legal perspectives” on economic terror. The Law needs to stay out of the way, he said. “The rules won’t work and the law is inadequate. Criminal law, he said, punishes after the act. We need to take action before the bad guys act. And the only way we can do that is to know what the bad guys are up to by “monitoring” them. Unfortunately, since we don’t know exactly who the bad guys are, we’re going to have to monitor everyone, it seems. And we’re going to ask our “Too Big to Fail” banks to help. So, the NSA, the CIA, Bank of America and Citigroup will work together to protect you and your data.

Why isn’t this a comforting prospect? Perhaps because we are still recovering from the loss of our homes, jobs and pensions that occurred as a consequence of the banks’ last exercise in risk management.

The bullet point from Mukasey was this:

In dealing with new economic threats and circumstances, the law has a strong tendency to get in the way. This is not to disparage the law but, rather, to recognize that new circumstances beg some jettisoning of old principles and the creation of new ones.

Yes, the law does have a tendency to get in the way. Which brings us back to the “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.” This smart new law will clear those cumbersome old ones out of the road. It will jettison old principles and create some new ones.

And this prospect is the truly terrifying one. At GAP, where we represent whistleblowers from the NSA, the CIA and the major US banks, we’ve learned that none of these institutions can be allowed to operate with the secrecy, privileged information and latitude they already have. Using their current powers, intelligence agencies are conducting wholesale, illegal surveillance of American citizens while wasting billions in taxpayers’ money on unconstitutional boondoggle projects. For their part, private banks have been leveraging loans to a point where they’re secretly insolvent.

Whistleblowers have shown us, with convincing clarity, that all of these institutions have abused the trust and authority they already have. They’re warning us that we may not want to jettison our constitutional rights in exchange for protection from economic jihad – whatever that is.


Bea Edwards is the Executive Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

Proof Positive That There Was No “Al-Qaeda” Before 1999 or 2000

The DCI Tenet memorandum posted below, was created  4 Dec. 1998.  Nowhere in that document from the Director of the CIA  will you find the expression “al-Qaeda.”  Dir. Tenet uses the expression “his infrastructure,” instead of “al-Qaeda,” wherever he refers to the bin Laden group.  

The date of the document places it approximately one-year from the release of the PNAC RebuildingAmericasDefenses document, which warned of a potential “New Pearl Harbor,” yet described it as a positive event, much like Netanyahu‘s unguarded assessment that the 911 events were “benefiting [Israel].”  Carl Rove is probably the genius who invented “al-Qaeda,” or else some other top diehard neocon Cold Warrior, who probably thought that the computer file name of the database of Afghan mujahedeen, Q eidat, would make a good, mysterious-sounding name (to Westerners) for an imaginary global Islamist terrorist organization.    

The Bush Administration assumed power literally hoping that the United States would receive its wake-up call, which would ultimately prove to be for “the greater good.”  Along comes 911.  

No matter which ultra-professional spy agencies were really behind the 911 attacks, the newly empowered Zionist-Republican-Neocons believed that  the attacks would serve as a wake-up call, and ultimately prove to be for “the greater good.”  They seize the opportunity provided by the devastating terrorist attacks and pin them on their imaginary, shadowy worldwide terror network that no one had ever heard of.  Linking the mythical group to Saudi millionaire bin Laden gave the myth credibility in the Western news media.   A stream of “insider leaks” fleshed-out the story with leaks about real-time terrorist exploits; terrorists who were allegedly “linked to Al-Qaeda” (SEE: Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida).  

Whether this proves prior knowledge, or it can be written-off as a result of the Continuity of Government process, on September 11, 2001 many people in the military and the government found themselves following orders from above that they neither agreed with, nor understood.  Guilt by deed or just by implication will one day be judged by an international court of law. `


DCI Dec War UBL. 2

If UN Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy Ignores Central Asian Border Fights, Then What Does It Prevent?

Why Does UN Central Asia Office Exist If Not For Kyrgyz Uzbek Border Fight?

Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 — What does the UN Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia do?

  For example, what has it done on the border fight between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, complete with blockades of Barak and Sokh, helicopters, threats?

  UNRCCA was set up by the former chief of the UN Department of Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, mostly because Turkmenistan was willing to invite the UN in.

  Once every six months Miroslav Jenca, Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, comes and briefs the Security Council, and a press statement is issued.

   But the briefing are always closed. And Jenca does not do stakeouts to take press questions.

   On Tuesday after the Security Council’s president for January Masood Khan came out and read the most recent Council press statement, Inner City Press asked him about the border fight between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

   Khan said things hadn’t come up in that level of detail. Then what is UNRCCA working on? What accountability ever was there for the pogrom against ethnic Uzkeks in Kyrgyzstan? You never find out from Jenca. What is the point of the Office?

When Will the Lying Western Press Stop Using the Term “Al-Qaeda,” When Referring To Saudi Terrorism?

[The all-encompassing term "al-Qaeda," is a descriptive term, used when referring to the principle of Saudi/Wahhabi oversight.  There is no such animal as "al-Qaeda," the alleged international terrorist organization, but there IS a Saudi terrorist organization of global reach.  The supposedly super-scary Algerian incident was NOT the work of an International Islamist, but simply the work of Algerian militant Muslims.  The alleged "all-Qaeda" link is the Saudi/Wahhabi influence that makes news-bites from all such groups sound the same.  That is all the Western press needs to create the myth of AL-Q.  Every step taken over the years by the group of terrorists known as Al-Q is a step taken by the Saudi royals, to implement their own agenda (which is shared with the CIA), moving in an ocean of petrodollars, hoping to secure their own global empire.  CIA patronage of this Saudi "Islamist" force for many decades, is the controlling power which allows the Saudis to keep expanding their subversive reach, while enabling them to direct where the Islamists are allowed to blow-off jihadi steam, without damaging Saudi/US interests.  

 Juhayman Otaibi, leader of Grand Mosque Siege

The radical Islamists of Saudi Arabia, since their siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, have been on the Saudi payroll.  As part of the surrender deal, the most tenacious survivors of the Mosque pacification were hired as full-time jihadis and then packed-off to Peshawar and Jalalabad, to wage their Wahhabi jihad against the godless Communists.  Since that time, succeeding Wahhabi-influenced jihadis have either been packed-off to Jihads in Europe and Asia, or else have been paid millions of dollars in protection money to stay away from Saudi Arabia.  The "al-Qaeda" that we have since come to know and adore (now planning our lives around them) is a complete fabrication, which is neither growing stronger, nor will ever really fade away.  On that basis, the following article is just another part of the organized deception.  

Using the term "al-Qaeda" to describe specific attacks is a malicious attempt to  falsely imply an international terrorist angle when describing natural nationalistic militant reactions to Western neo-colonialism, hoping to create a "red herring" behind which to hide outrage to the re-colonization of former Empire territories.  Whenever Western corporations begin to move-in for the mass-pillaging of natural resources militants must, by their nature, rise-up to defend their homelands.  The fact that they are Muslims by birth qualifies them to be called "Islamists" by the Western disinformation (news) agencies.  It is high time to break the cycle of lies that insulates the current and former American and Western administrations from reaping their own outraged reactions from their own constituents for manufacturing this "terrorist" bogeyman.]

Al-Qaida: how great is the terrorism threat to the west now?

In the aftermath of the Algerian hostage crisis, David Cameron issued an ominous warning of the continued threat from terrorism. But is al-Qaida more, or less, dangerous than before?

Hostages surrender to Islamist gunmen who overtook the gas plant in the Algerian desert

Hostages surrender to Islamist gunmen who overtook the gas plant in the Algerian desert. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Last week the world took another step towards succumbing to an existential threat. Again.

Speaking in the aftermath of the spectacular seizure and siege of an Algerian gas refinery by Islamist extremists 10 days ago, David Cameron warned of how “we face a large and existential terrorist threat from a group of extremists based in different parts of the world who want to do the biggest possible amount of damage to our interests and way of life”.

There was little further detail, leaving it unclear if the prime minister was referring to al-Qaida, the group founded by the late Osama bin Laden 25 years ago. Or possibly al-Qaida-type groups in the middle of the Saharan desert. Or maybe other offshoots around the world. Or possibly the ideology of al-Qaida.

However, the broad thrust of what he was saying was obvious: if you thought the threat from al-Qaida, however defined, had gone away, you were wrong. It is here, and will be here for decades to come. And it endangers the very foundation of our societies. The intervening week, one imagines, replete as it was with a range of shootings, bombings, arrests and court judgments across the world all involving Islamist extremism, has not improved things.

Such rhetoric was once familiar. We heard much of it in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and through the months before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But as the years have passed however, such pronouncements of imminent danger became rarer. The public naturally learned to be suspicious of rhetoric raising fears that appeared unreasonable and unfounded. We all learned enough about the complex phenomenon of contemporary Islamist militancy to be able to challenge the sillier claims ourselves. Policymakers recognised that any exaggeration, particularly of the “global” nature of a threat that their own security services were increasingly seeing as local, simply played into the hands of the enemy.

So Cameron’s words last week, echoed elsewhere, were unexpected.

Rather like al-Qaida’s own rhetoric in the wake of the changes wrought by the Arab spring, they sounded dated; at worst, they were an indication of wilful ignorance, a nostalgia for simpler times when leaders could promise “iron resolve” against a threat without provoking widespread scepticism. They have however usefully provoked a new debate on two very old questions, both still urgent and important: what is al-Qaida? And is it more or less dangerous than it was?

Answering the first question is, for once, relatively straightforward. Islamist militancy is a phenomenon going back much further than the foundation of the group al-Qaida by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden in 1988. There have been waves of revivalism in the Muslim world since the days of the Prophet Muhammad. These have frequently come in response to external challenges, whether political, social, cultural and military. Intense and very varied reactions were provoked by European colonialism in the 19th century from Afghanistan to Algeria, from Morocco to Malaysia and beyond. The end of European colonialism in the Muslim world in no way diminished the immediacy of that challenge nor the venality, brutality and incompetence of local regimes. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, scores of different violent extremist movements, in part products of a massive new interest in “Islamism” across the Muslim world, were waging armed struggles against local governments in the name of religion.

Al-Qaida (usually translated as “the base”) was founded – in Pakistan towards the end of the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets – to channel and co-ordinate the dispersed efforts of these movements into a single campaign. It believed that striking at a universally accepted global enemy, the US, would lead to the destruction of “hypocrite” unbelieving regimes across the Muslim world in the short term and, eventually, the creation of a new ill-defined and utopian religious rule. This latter goal was long-term, a cosmic struggle, possibly indefinite and certainly undefinable in terms of time.

Aided by a range of external factors, al-Qaida was to some extent successful in achieving its less abstract aims, striking the US hard and drawing together an unprecedented network of affiliates in the late 1990s. This then helped – particularly by the response to the 9/11 attacks and other operations – disseminate its ideology further than ever before in the noughties.

The high point, however, was reached around 2004 or 2005. Even as it appeared to peak, the wave of extremism was receding. Since then, the central leadership of al-Qaida has suffered blow after blow. It is not just Bin Laden who has been killed or rendered inactive, but pretty much everyone else in the senior and middle ranks of the organisation. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaida central, may be an effective, utterly dedicated and experienced organiser but he lacks Bin Laden’s charisma. Saif al Adel, the only other veteran leader remaining, lacks his stature and may not be at liberty at all but detained in Iran.

Key players who few, beyond specialists, had ever heard of – such as the very capable Libyan Atiyah Abd al-Rahman – have gone. British security officials describe “al-Qaida central” as being “hollowed out”, largely by the controversial drone strikes. Equally damaging for the group, al-Qaida’s training infrastructure is minimal, certainly compared with the dozens of fully fledged camps that were in use on the eve of the 9/11 attacks. Back in 2008, according to interrogation documents, handlers were forced to admit to new recruits coming straight from Europe that their facilities unfortunately bore no resemblance to those depicted in recruiting videos.

Nothing has improved since. Volunteers are fewer than before. There are younger members rising up the thinning ranks, but this is promotion by default not merit.

Equally damaging has been the rejection by successive communities over the past two decades. Almost every attempt by al-Qaida central to win genuine popular support has failed – in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Polls show approval ratings for Bin Laden peaking around 2004-5 and then steep decline. This is particularly true when communities have direct experience of extremist violence or rule. The al-Qaida brand is irremediably tarnished. Even Bin Laden was apparently thinking of relaunching the group under a new name, his correspondence reveals.

The Mumbai terrorist siege had no links with al-Qaida.

The terrorist siege of Mumbai had no links with al-Qaida. Photograph: Sebastian D’souza/APThe two most spectacular attacks in recent years – in Algeria and the strike on Mumbai by Pakistan-based militants from the Lashkar-e-Taiba organisation – were carried out by entities that have, in the first instance, tenuous connections with al-Qaida’s senior leadership and, in the second, none at all. This indicates the degree to which the remnant led by al-Zawahiri have become, at best, only one player among many.

The result is that the centripetal force the group once exerted has gone and we have returned to a situation similar to that of the old “pre-al-Qaida” days with a whole series of different local groups involved in local struggles with negligible central co-ordination.

There are major differences with the previous period, of course. Decades of violence have led to much higher structural levels of radicalisation and polarisation. The technology and tactics used by all protagonists in these current “shadow wars” has evolved. Then there are the consequences of the Arab spring – for the Sahel and Syria and elsewhere. But, nonetheless, the unthinking use of the term al-Qaida, as has so often been the case in the past, obscures rather than illuminate the real chaotic and fractured, if still dynamic, nature of modern Islamist militancy. This is something Cameron’s own security services will have told him.

Of course a threat remains. But the big attacks – those that could potentially pose something a little closer to “an existential threat” – are unlikely. These would need to be in a major European or US city or involve at least one passenger jet. If British intelligence, despite having a team devoted for months to checking and rechecking every possible potential lead, could not come up with a single credible threat to the London Olympics last year and their US counterparts were confident enough to declare a similar lack of immediate danger during the recent presidential campaign, it appears fair to assume that bombs in London or New York are a fairly distant prospect for the moment. The biggest threat to airplanes comes from a single highly proficient bombmaker in the Yemen.

The location of the major spectacular attacks appears closely related to al-Qaida’s ability to focus the dispersed energies of contemporary Sunni Islamist extremism. Through the 1990s, attacks were restricted to targets – in Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere – which were distant from western populations, with the exception of the first abortive plot to bomb the World Trade Center in New York in 1993. US troops who were attacked in Somalia in that year in the famous “Blackhawk Down” episode had simply strayed into someone else’s war.

By the late 1990s, US interests were being attacked, but in east Africa or the Yemen. It was only through the first six years of the past decade that the violence approached the west – first in Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, then in Madrid and London. But since, the dynamic has reversed, tracking the new weakness of the al-Qaida senior leadership. The big attacks still come – but in Islamabad, Mumbai, Kabul, Baghdad, and now in the deserts of the Sahara. Nor do they strike targets that resonate throughout the Muslim world. A gas refinery in southern Algeria is not the Pentagon.

Partly this is due to vastly improved security precautions and competent intelligence services that co-operated much more effectively.

Intermittent attempts to down airplanes have been defeated, if only just. Hundreds of potential troublemakers have been stopped long before they even begin to contemplate actually perpetrating a violent attack. MI5 officials say that, in part due to closer collaboration with a range of other agencies and particularly the police, they are able to head off possible threats much earlier. One compared their operations to the famously tedious stonewall tactics of the Arsenal team 20 years ago. “It’s boring but it works,” he said.

There is, of course, the fear of a “lone wolf”, a solo, self-radicalising extremist. The example most often cited is Mohamed Merah, the French-Algerian who killed three soldiers as well as three Jewish schoolchildren and a teacher last March.

A spokesman for Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the man who orchestrated the recent refinery attack in Algeria, told French media on Monday that France could expect “dozens like … Merah and Khaled Kelkal” who would spontaneously rise up to kill and maim.

Islamist militia leader Mokhtar Belmokhtar

Islamist militia leader Mokhtar Belmokhtar, who orchestrated the Amenas refinery attack in Algeria. Photograph: APBut real lone wolves are extremely rare. Kelkal, who carried out a series of attacks in France in 1995, plugged into a broader network of militants run and recruited by Algerian groups active at the time. Merah did the shooting on his own but came from a family steeped in extremist versions of Islam and anti-Semitism, had been to Afghanistan and Pakistan to train and was, French and Pakistani officials say, connected to Moez Garsalloui, a high-profile known Belgian militant, now dead, who had been recruiting widely and was well-known to intelligence services. Merah was thus not only part of an old style of terrorism – recruits making their way to the badlands of Pakistan to get trained and then returning to carry out attacks – but was also much less effective than predecessors such as those responsible for the 7/7 attacks in London. The number of people making that journey is now a fraction of the levels of six or seven years ago. Back then, scores, if not hundreds, made their way to the Afghan-Pakistan frontier to fight alongside the Taliban or other groups. Now the number is in the low dozens, according to intelligence officials in Pakistan, the UK and elsewhere.

The other fear is of a new generation of veteran militants returning from the battlefields of the Sahel to wreak havoc in the US or, more realistically, Europe. There are some reports that Canadian or even French passport-holders were among those who attacked the refinery. However, there are two reasons to be relatively sanguine.

Islamist fighters from Islamist group Ansar Dine in Mali.

Islamist fighters from the Islamist group Ansar Dine in Mali. Photograph: APFirst, the facilities available for training in the region are minimal and there would seem to be no reason why extremists graduating in terrorist studies from there would be better able to carry out effective mass casualty attacks than men such as Merah.

Second, we are yet to see a wave of violence involving veterans of much more longlasting and extensive violence elsewhere in the Maghreb or the core of the Middle East. British intelligence officials pointed to the experience of the horrific conflict in Iraq when asked about the possibility of veterans of the current fighting in Syria, where extremist religious groups are playing an increasingly significant role, posing a threat to the UK. Only one attack – the abortive 2007 London and Glasgow strikes – has been definitively linked to someone involved in that previous conflict, and he was not a former fighter. Iraqi veterans have proved dangerous in Saudi, even in Afghanistan and in the Maghreb. But that is not the same as posing a direct existential threat to the west. There seems, the officials say, to be no reason why the Syrian theatre should produce a greater threat today than the Iraqi theatre has done. Nor, indeed, Mali.

Does this all mean that Islamist militancy will simply die away? Of course not. A phenomenon with such long and complex roots will evolve rather than disappear. That is what is currently happening in this new post-al-Qaida phase. Wherever the various factors that allow the “Salafi-Jihadi” ideology to get traction are united, there is likely to be violence. Extremists do, as Cameron said, “thrive when they have ungoverned spaces in which they can exist, build and plan” and the aftermath of the Arab spring has not just opened up new terrain but also exacerbated existing problems of lawlessness and criminality. Flows of arms from Libya have made a bad situation worse.

And if you take the fighting in Mali and the attack on the refinery, and add it to a list of all the incidents occurring around the globe involving extremist Islamist violence, it is undoubtedly a frightening picture.

In the last few days there were arrests in the Philippines, anti-terrorist operations in Indonesia, deaths in Pakistan (due to infighting between extremist groups), air raids in Afghanistan on suspected al-Qaida bases,battles in the Yemen, shootings and executions in Iraq following the release of a video showing brutal executions, reports of trials in the UK and Germany as well as fighting in Mali.

But does this all add up to al-Qaida 3.0, more dangerous than ever before? There’s a simple test. Think back to those dark days of 2004 or 2005 and how much closer the violence seemed. Were you more frightened then, or now? The aim of terrorism is to inspire irrational fear, to terrorise. Few are as fearful today as they were back then. So that means there are two possibilities: we are wrong, ignorant or misinformed, and should be much more worried than we are; or our instincts are right, and those responsible for the violence are as far from posing an existential threat as they have ever been.

• This article was amended on 29 January 2013. The abortive attacks on London and Glasgow took place in 2007, not 2006 as originally stated.

The Guardian

A Rare Case of Brit Press Telling the Truth About “Al-Qaeda” Bogeyman

[There is nothing surprising or unknown  contained in the following Guardian report, just more of the same fake "al-Qaeda" news, conflating any militant "Islamist" attacks as elements of a global web of Wahhabi terrorism, except that this report "pooh-poohs" that false notion.  That is the real news here.  The legend of "al-Qaeda" was created in this manner, by the Western press reporting on separate nationalist and terrorist attacks as one worldwide web of "international terrorism," even though there were very few real connections and even fewer real "Islamists."  Under "war on terror" rules, everybody can be either "linked to al-Qaeda" or Kevin Bacon,when in reality, very few fundamentalist lunatics are among the real international terrorists, who nearly all work for the CIA.  All of those terrorists are only in it for the Big Money.]

Algeria: Islamist threat to Europe is overstated

the guardian

Mokhtar ‘Marlboro man’ Belmokhtar and his fighters are more interested in overthrowing government than attacking west

Mokhtar Belmokhtar

Mokhtar Belmokhtar, said to be the mastermind of the Algerian hostage attacks. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

The intervention of French military forces in Mali and the apparent reprisals in the form of the hostage crisis at the In Amenas gas processing plant in Algeria have brought the threat of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to international attention. The drama of the hostage crisis has shot the hitherto unknown group Signatories in Blood and its leader Mokhtar Belmokhtar, variably referred to as an Islamist with ties to Osama bin Ladin and/or a senior al-Qaida leader, to notoriety overnight and has prompted western leaders to focus on the possibility of a growing threat of Islamist terrorism on Europe’s southern border. Such tragic events are bound to provoke a strong reaction, yet, upon closer examination, it seems that the idea of a threat to mainland Europe is overstated.

Even at a glance, the nature of the attack – hostage-taking for financial gain – is not the kind we have come to associate with al-Qaida over the years. Rather than reflecting the “signature” suicide attack with mass casualties, the event fits more appropriately into the series of other hostage-takings that have taken place in Algeria in recent years but which have not been on so grand a scale and hence have not gained the same attention as events at In Amenas.

It is not only the events which are different: the particular branch of al-Qaida to which they have been ascribed, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), formerly known as the GSPC (Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat – Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat) stands out for its focus on a local agenda. Although it has allegedly claimed that it supports Bin Ladin, the group, which was found to be responsible for car bombings that took place in Algiers in 2007, as well as a number of other local incidents, appears to be more concerned with overthrowing the Algerian government and the institution of an Islamic state in its place than with Bin Ladin’s vision of the reestablishment of the caliphate and global jihad against the west.

While it can be argued that the above is not entirely out of touch with al-Qaida’s stated aims, it is nonetheless a return to the “near enemy” – the forces of occupation and secularisation – that have preoccupied Islamists for almost a century. While the AQIM’s claim to be acting in the name of “al-Qaida central” feels very much like a convenient piece of flag-waving, current al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri declared in 2006 that America and France were the enemies, indicating a pragmatic approach by which senior al-Qaida leaders aim to flatter their local affiliates, enabling one side to continue to maintain the impression of its global reach while the other benefits from association with the infamous name. The true extent of any link or cooperative strategy, however, remains open to question.

If there is little evidence to suggest genuine cooperation between AQIM and the senior leadership of al-Qaida, the connection between al-Qaida and Belmokhtar and his Signatories in Blood is even more tenuous. Sometimes referred to as “Marlboro man” for his cigarette-smuggling exploits, Belmokhtar has a wide-ranging and impressive criminal career which includes drug trafficking, diamond smuggling and the kidnapping of dozens of westerners, such as diplomats, aid workers and tourists, for ransoms of up to $3m each. Yet Belmokhtar’s success and growing influence were to be his downfall as far as his membership of AQIM was concerned.

While his actions at In Amenas supposedly link Belmokhtar to al-Qaida in the eyes of the west, he in fact made the news on various jihadist forums for falling out with AQIM for his “fractious behavior”, and either resigned or was formally dismissed from its ranks in late 2012. Such splintering is far from exceptional; indeed, it exemplifies the present state of al-Qaida.

Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), operating in Yemen, and the recently formed Ansar al-Sharia are a case in point: despite their different names and agendas, the two groups are frequently referred to as one and the same and are conceived of as somehow representing a joint force. This bias amongst commentators towards presenting a united al-Qaida in various regions of the world is conducive only to resurrecting the popular, yet deeply flawed theory that al-Qaida operates on a global basis as a cohesive group, with all that this implies for the threat it poses to global security.

Today more than ever before, al-Qaida and its local affiliates are highly fragmented and in disagreement as to their priorities of ideology and strategy. Indeed, the lines of fragmentation only begin here: beyond the increasing internal debate, al-Qaida and its local affiliates find themselves in direct contest with other, often more established Islamist groups with radically different worldviews and agendas, many of which now enjoy greater popularity because they are not so ready to spill the blood of their fellow Muslims.

Whilst the existence of groups such as The Signatories in Blood and the dramatic, violent nature of incidents such as mass hostage-takings and car-bombings heightens fears in the west of a resurgence of the al-Qaida that caused so much death and destruction on 9/11, the truth is that most of today’s al-Qaida franchises have a much more limited vision. Thus, when David Cameron announces that Britain must pursue the terrorists with an iron resolve, he unwittingly reinforces a notion of a unified Islamist threat that does not exist in that form. It is a convenient narrative which benefits both the propaganda machine of Islamists and the calls of those in the west who support military action, yet the true picture of those who claim to act in the name of al-Qaida – both in Africaand elsewhere – is far more nuanced, and much less of a threat to Europe, than we are commonly led to believe.

Christina Hellmich is reader in International Relations and Middle East Studies at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Reading

American Foreign Policy Contradictions–Torn Between “Good Al-Qaeda” and “Bad Al-Qaeda”

American Foreign Policy Contradictions–

Torn Between “Good Al-Qaeda” and “Bad Al-Qaeda”

Peter Chamberlin    

“US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has said the slimmed-down force would focus on preventing Al-Qaeda… from regaining a foothold in the war-shattered nation.”

When Do We Fight Against Terrorists and When Do We Put Them On the American Payroll?

The hypocritical foreign policy of Barack Obama is identical to that of his two predecessors–Little Moronic Bush and Sleazy Jefferson Clinton.  All three of them have somehow managed to convert Ronald Reagan’s “Mujahedeen” allies (originally called “freedom fighters”) into terrorists, just long enough to jump-start the Pentagon’s brilliant limited world war plan, before Obama converted the Mujahedeen (“al-Qaeda”) back into our allies in Libya and Syria.  The Al-Qaeda Mujahedeen have always worked on the American payroll, even when they were blowing-up our foreign facilities and helping to demolish American landmarks.  Now that we are back to the point where the two-headed al-Qaeda coin is once again flipped, to remind Americans of the phony excuse of “keeping al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan” and American troops in Afghanistan–The latest incarnation of “Why we fight,” according to Mr. Panetta.

The Pentagon and their minions in Hollywood have been producing similar films offering their version of  reality since WWII.  Now that computers have given them the capability to create simulations of their version of reality, they have their best liars hard at work simulating a very real World War III.  Their ultimate intention is to use this world war simulation as their vehicle to carry an all too real world war into the lives of the people of the world, beginning in 2013.   That is the key to understanding the contradictions, the hypocrisy and the deception–mixing staged productions with real events.  The mass-media makes it all possible, without them, there would be only reality, a reality that would be impossible for anyone to deny.

We have reached the point of contradiction in the grand psyop, where the majority of people will no longer be able to “suspend disbelief,” the key element of every good Hollywood production.  America’s “global war on terrorism” works on the same principles as every previous Hollywood extravaganza–in order for the plot to work, the viewer must first agree to the terms of  a symbolic contract between movie-goer and movie-maker.  In this instance, we are talking about the “suspension of disbelief” clause in the social/entertainment contract.  Every movie-watcher must abide by this guiding concept, to agree from the start, to watch the movie with an uncritical eye, saving any criticisms about plot deficiencies until the end of the movie, or at least until the true story has been revealed.

This is the point we have reached in the Hollywood/Pentagon production (PsyOp), where the true plot has been revealed to those of us with the power or the desire to see the truth in the American terror war, a point which would normally come towards the end of the production.  Since we are being sucked into a permanent state of limited world war, the rules of movie etiquette no longer apply to us.  Those of us who can see are free to openly rip into the cheesy plot that has been thrust upon us.

We are locked in a terror war, even though we are now openly allied with the very same “al-Qaeda” terrorists whom we have allegedly have allegedly been fighting against since the beginning of Bush’s terror war.  Barack Obama is were clearly using terrorists as the central element of his foreign policy.  He has been using them as a proxy force of paid mercenaries in Libya and Syria, just as he has been using the  the “al-Qaeda-linked”  Tehreek e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in Pakistan’s Tribal Region.  Hakeemullah Mehsud’s TTP own the “al-Qaeda” franchise in Pakistan even though they are working for Obama, as they originally killed Pakistanis for Little Bush.  Before we contracted these “al-Qaeda” terrorists in Pakistan, Bush and Cheney had contracted a different branch of “al-Qaeda” to kill American servicemen in Iraq.  Bush had needed them to prolong the Iraq war for him after the initial quick victory.  Now Obama needs them to perform the same service in Pakistan and Afghanistan, helping him to prolong the war there into the indefinite future.  Whenever American foreign policy relies upon a hardcore force of “Islamist” militants to fight for us, either as “freedom fighters,” or against us as “terrorists,” then the inherent contradiction is revealed.  This is the turning point, where the audience begins to “look behind the curtain.”


This is the point of contradiction which now confronts us, the point where all government bullshit breaks-down.  This is the time for us to either hold the hypocritical contradictions high over our heads and turn them to our advantage, or to surrender our country to the Fascists and the closet Communists who have conspired to bring us to this point of ruin?  Another American revolution surely beats another American civil war, any day.

Without Obama’s hypocritical deceit, there would be no reason for any American troops to stay in Afghanistan.  Without President Obama’s use of terrorism within Iran and Lebanon ( in blind submission to the Fascist Israelis), then there would be no excuse for any anti-Iranian or anti-Hezbollah sanctions.  If it were not for American contracts with terrorists and mercenaries all over the world, then there would be no valid reason to wage any war anywhere.

“We the People of the United States” have a sacred duty to posterity and to the entire human race to put an end to the evil reign of the terrorist Barack Obama.  Anything less will not do.  It is high time that we all recognize the farce that we have all been living, thinking that it was all beyond our control.  We have to carry-out just one more “regime change,” this one has to take place in Washington, D.C.

Revolution is mandatory.  We will not follow a terrorist government any longer.

Take it to the streets.



The TTP Terrorists Now Want To Pretend That They Are Statesmen

TTP ready to hold talks, says spokesman


Photo shows spokesman for banned militant outfit, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Ehsanullah Ehsan.—File Photo

PESHAWAR: Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan told Dawn.com’s correspondent on Wednesday that the proscribed outfit was ready for ‘meaningful’ dialogue with the Government of Pakistan.

Ehsan said the TTP had always been ready for negotiations, adding that, the Pakistani government was following foreign dictates and talks would only be possible if the government would have the authority to hold them freely.

Responding to a query on a statement by chief of the Awami National Party (ANP), Asfanyar Wali Khan, that talks with the Pakistani Taliban were possible if they renounced violence, the TTP spokesman said “terms and conditions” were unacceptable for any peace talks to be initiated.

In a letter addressed to the Government of Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban offering to hold talks said that the ANP could be granted amnesty if the party apologised for its ‘wrong’ policies  and altered these, adding that, the same would apply to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM).

The letter further said that the TTP had no fight with the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) whereas the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) should live up to their statements.

The TTP also claimed that the organisation was not involved in attacks on JUI and JI.

The fight with the militant organisation was initiated by the government and the armed forces of Pakistan, the letter said, adding that, the war could end provided that the government formulated its policies and its constitution in accordance with the Islamic Shariah.

Earlier on Sunday, the ANP chief had said that the use of military means was no more an effective way of resolving political issues.

He had also stated that his party had always supported dialogue with ‘saner elements’ among the Taliban for the sake of regional stability.

Khan had said the ANP believed that talks were the only way to end terrorism and resolve militancy-related issues because sections of elements among the extremists were challenging Pakistan’s sovereignty and writ of the state.

UN Security Council Unanimously Approves Another Armed Intervention Against Another American “Islamist” Terror

[Re:  UN Security Council approves Mali intervention force]

After witnessing the same deadly, hypocritical scenario unfold over and over, I am just now beginning to see the real genius that went into the Pentagon’s “Take-over-the-World Plan.”   This is how you manage to wage war upon the entire world, more or less simultaneously, with nothing more than an all-volunteer force and implied threats.  When Pentagon/CIA agents, or their corporate counterparts control all news, then it becomes possible to hide entire real wars, or to “simulate” non-existent conflict.  It is no wonder that the world has become accustomed to the idea of universal conflagration, when we think that we see new Pentagon fires rising all around us on a daily basis.  The Pentagon loves to play with fire, especially when it has so many playmates.  It is these playmates that the Pentagon relies upon whenever the time seems ripe to seek UN authorization for another “Just War” against another imaginary “Islamist threat.”  There is no limit to the depravity of American “Warfighters,” who will do anything, or kill anyone, to advance their glorious mission to establish a new Global Reich–Hoo-Rah!

This latest playing of the “Islamist” card in Mali occurred just when Russian moves in the Mediterranean had made it obvious that we were flirting with Armegeddon in Syria.   The Pentagon/CIA’s “Islamist” pals always manage to pop-up in some obscure corner of the world like Mali whenever one of the Pentagon’s major limited conflicts like Syria, or Afghanistan threaten to turn into real war.   (You remember when the Pentagon wasn’t afraid to fight real armies, don’t you?)  Whenever these Islamists manage to stir-up enough trouble that they successfully ignite some sort of real conflict, they give the State Dept. goons what they need to go to the UN for “humanitarian” relief.  If the rest of the American people only knew the cold truth, which most of us in the alternative media already understand, that ALL ISLAMIST TERROR is American created terrorism, then the hypocritical self-blindness would be stripped-away, and we would recognize our Fascist government for what it is, the new Nazi Reich reincarnated.

After all, the essence of all American government mind-manipulation science is a continuation of the illegal Nazi concentration camp studies, which have been merged with the infamous Strategic Bombing Survey made by the Brits and American sociologists at the end of WWII.  Where the Nazi scientists were perfecting a primitive mind-control science, the British and Americans were perfecting the art of mass-terror as the basis for mass mind-manipulation.  They perfected the art of strategic bombing as the basis of a new kind of political terrorism, giving them the capability to move huge “herds” of terrorized human beings as a primary instrument of Western foreign policy.  World planners now understand that it is far easier and cheaper to immobilize vital targets and strategic connections by overwhelming transportation grids using masses of refugees, instead of massive carpet-bombing and siege tactics.  Just look to the case of Pakistan in its simulated warfare in the tribal region, by flushing entire tribes upon the roadways before announced offensives, they have created the impression of real war, even though the actual campaigns are made impossible, or obscured by the masses of frightened refugees (internally displaced persons) clogging the limited roadways.

The merger of the two streams of the outlawed pseudo-sciences has empowered American political and social scientists with a working ability to effect limited mind-control through mass-suggestion over broad segments of the human race, even giving them the ability to pursue multiple separate streams of auto-suggestion in different war theaters, simultaneously.  The combined American-Nazi black arts are an unwelcome reality, but they are a new, artificial form of reality.

This brings us back to the point of this particular commentary, the Pentagon’s self-labelled “whack-a-mole strategy,” aptly describes the new “Warfighting” strategy, which underwent its trial run in Afghanistan and Iraq, before going live globally with the strategy, such as we are witnessing today.   The name of the new game is “incrementalism,” a game at which Obama has proven to be a master player.  Pump-up the fear level in one outbreak, while backing it off a bit in another conflict (such as Pakistan’s tribal region) which threatened to boil over.  The concept of “conflict management” requires that the manager never allow any conflict to escalate out of control, while the corresponding “strategy of tension” requires the apparent escalation of conflict, in order to achieve the proper level of terror.  This terror can theoretically be maintained indefinitely, unless credible resistance (like the Russian Navy) arises to challenge the Manager’s control, such as in the case in Syria.  When the war on Syria began to fall apart, due primarily to Russian resistance, the Western media employed its usual sleight of hand, diverting our attention with an  announcement to the court of world opinion that an army of  “Islamists” was poised to takeover northern Mali.  While harping on our “humanitarian” obligations to prevent another domino from falling to the “Islamist menace,” the controlled Western news leaders have stuck to their government-approved scripts and assiduously avoided any mention of the obvious fact that Western governments were empowering the same “Islamists/Al-Qaeda” everywhere else.

The Pentagon’s secret private armies were perfectly suited for producing justification for “whacking” the latest “moles” (even though the “moles” were all Pentagon/CIA-trained terrorists), but they had zero capabilities for actually destabilizing or overthrowing any government on their own.  The Pentagon was very successful at parlaying its Saudi/Qatari petrodollars into a “global war on on terrorism,” all they had to do to set their plan for total global domination into motion was to kill 3,000 Americans, or facilitate their murder, while their controlled news cameras maintained a steady broadcast of their manufactured horrors into every American home.  That is the ultimate bottom line in all of this, anyway, the Pentagon has slaughtered thousands of men, women and children in order to become the center of world Fascism, and there are no limits as to how far these evil killers will go, to finalize their long-term plans to subjugate every single human mind.

The scariest and possibly the most disheartening of all of this, is that every government on earth is playing along with these evil bastards, hoping for their own piece of the pie, even Russia.  The new Mali Security Council initiative was approved unanimously–no Russian or Chinese veto on this one.  I guess that if Putin is really the world’s best hope for resistance to Imperial aggression, that he doesn’t give a shit if we slaughter another few hundred thousand black Africans.

Peter Chamberlin, therearenosunglasses@hotmail.com

UN Security Council approves Mali intervention force

News Asia

People gather on December 18, 2012 during an opposition meeting in Nouakchoutt during which opposition leaders warned against the intervention of their country in the conflict in Mali. (AFP PHOTO/Ahmrd Ould Mohamed Ould Elhadji)

UNITED NATIONS: The UN Security Council on Thursday unanimously approved sending an African-led intervention force to help Mali’s army reconquer much of the country from Islamist militants. The 15-member council gave the force an initial one year mandate to use “all necessary measures” to help the Mali government take back the northern half of the country from “terrorist, extremist and armed groups.” West African nations say they have 3,300 troops ready to go to Mali to help rebuild the country’s army and support a military operation which planners say cannot be launched before September of next year. Tuareg rebels and other separatists and Al-Qaeda linked militant groups took advantage of a coup in Mali in March to seize control of a vast chunk of territory where the Islamists have since imposed a brutal form of Islamic law. France drew up the resolution after weeks of talks with the United States, which expressed doubts the troops from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) would be ready for a desert battle against the militants. In parallel to political efforts to draw the Tuareg rebels into a coalition against the extremist groups, European nations and the international force, to be known as the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA), will first train Mali’s army. The resolution sets down benchmarks for political progress and military preparations that will have to be met before a final onslaught against Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its allies is approved. The resolution emphasized that “military planning will need to be further refined before the commencement of the offensive operation.” It said that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, ECOWAS, the African Union and other states involved will have to secure “the council’s satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation.” – AFP/fa

Russian Minister Upbeat Over Potential Syrian Govt Win, While Western Press Has Him Saying the Opposite

[Strange how Pakistan's Dawn is running an AFP report which claims the opposite (SEE:  Syria minister wounded, Russia says regime may lose).]

A damaged area is pictured after a car bomb in Qatana, near Damascus December 13, 2012 in this handout photograph released by Syria's national news agency SANA. REUTERS-Sana

A damaged area is pictured after a car bomb in Qatana, near Damascus December 13, 2012 in this handout photograph released by Syria’s national news agency SANA. 
Credit: REUTERS/Sana


Russia says Syrian rebels might win; car bomb kills 16

(Reuters) – Syrian rebels are gaining ground and might win, Russia’s deputy foreign minister said on Thursday, in the starkest such admission from a major ally of President Bashar al-Assad.

“One must look the facts in the face,” Russia’s state-run RIA quoted Mikhail Bogdanov as saying. “Unfortunately, the victory of the Syrian opposition cannot be ruled out.”

Bogdanov, who is Kremlin’s special envoy for Middle East affairs, said the Syrian government was “losing control of more and more territory” and that Moscow was preparing plans to evacuate Russian citizens if necessary.

Advancing rebels now hold an almost continuous arc of territory from the east to the southeast of Damascus, despite fierce army bombardments designed to drive them back.

A car bomb killed at least 16 men, women and children in Qatana, a town about 25 km (15 miles) southwest of Damascus where many soldiers live, activists and state media said.

The explosion occurred in a residential area for soldiers in Qatana, which is near several army bases, said Rami Abdelrahman, head of the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

He put the death toll as 17, including seven children and two women. State news agency SANA said 16 people had died.

State television blamed the blast on “terrorists” – its term for rebels – and showed footage of soldiers walking by a partly collapsed building, with rubble and twisted metal on the road.

The attack follows three bombs at the Interior Ministry on Wednesday evening, in which state news agency SANA said five people were killed, including Abdullah Kayrouz, a member of parliament from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

Apart from gaining territory in the outskirts of Damascus in recent weeks, rebels have also made hit-and-run attacks or set off bombs within the capital, often targeting state security buildings or areas seen as loyal to Assad, such as Jaramana, where twin bombs killed 34 people in November.


Insurgents launched an offensive on Damascus after a July 18 bombing that killed four of Assad’s closest aides, including his feared brother-in-law Assef Shawkat, but were later pushed back.

With his back to the wall, Assad is reported to be turning ever deadlier weapons on his adversaries.

U.S. NATO officials said on Wednesday that the Syrian military had fired Scud-style ballistic missiles, which are powerful but not very accurate, against rebels in recent days.

Human Rights Watch said some populated areas had been hit by incendiary bombs, containing flammable materials such as napalm, thermite or white phosphorous, which can set fire to buildings or cause severe burns and respiratory damage.

The British-based Syrian Observatory said war planes were bombing rebel-held eastern suburbs of Damascus on Thursday and artillery was hitting Daraya and Moadamiyeh, southwestern areas near the centre where rebels have been fighting for a foothold.

At least 40,000 people have been killed in Syria’s uprising, which started in March 2011 with street protests which were met with gunfire by Assad’s security forces, and which spiraled into the most enduring and destructive of the Arab revolts.

The United States, European powers and Arab states bestowed their official blessing on Syria’s newly-formed opposition coalition on Wednesday, despite increasing signs of Western unease at the rise of militant Islamists in the rebel ranks.

Western nations at “Friends of Syria” talks in Marrakech, Morocco rallied around a new opposition National Coalition formed last month under moderate Islamist cleric Mouaz Alkhatib.

Russia, which along with China has blocked any U.N. Security Council measures against Assad, criticized Washington’s decision to grant the coalition formal recognition, saying it appeared to have abandoned any effort to reach a political solution.

Bogdanov’s remarks were the clearest sign yet that Russia is preparing for the possible defeat of Assad’s government.

“We are dealing with issues of preparations for an evacuation. We have mobilization plans and are clarifying where our citizens are located,” Bogdanov said.

Pak Army Once Again Spreading Lies About Non-Existent “Taliban Split”

[(SEE:  Pak. Army Slowly Building New “Pakistani Taliban” Cover Story)  This Pakistani Army scam has been used repeatedly with all of the militant/terrorist groups which they have recruited and trained over the years, beginning with the notorious Sipah e-Sahaba, which supposedly split and spawned the new and allegedly unconnected Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.  Sipah/Jhangvi later became known as Punjabi Taliban, the source of most of the Pakistani Taliban leadership.  This imaginary terrorist-splitting process is a type of psychological warfare, which serves to take the heat off of terror groups which have proven to be too successful, while promoting the false notion that the Pak authorities are actually persecuting homegrown terrorist outfits.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  This tactic throws-off researchers, analysts and other investigators who manage to get too close to the truth about specific terror groups and almost obtain hard proof that Pakistan is a terrorist State, which has produced most of the terrorists in the world.  In truth, this is an American corporate strategy which has been used for decades to hide US corporate and government criminality from ongoing investigations.  It is impossible to know just how many investigations have ended in dead-ends because of these simple name changes.  When a criminal enterprise supposedly ends its existence and adopts a new unsullied, virgin name, they have no history tied to a name, leaving researchers with only cold leads.  What we are witnessing in Pakistan in this latest deception is the redirection of the Pak Taliban to its original purpose of providing support and rear bases to the majority Afghan Taliban of the ISI and Mullah Omar.  Waliur Rehman may or may not lead this redirected force, but the British and Pakistani presses will do everything in their power to convince us that he has really replaced the brutal criminal Hakeemullah.  Nothing about the war on terror is true.  That is the nature of the psywar.]

Pakistani officials promoting false split in Taliban leadership cadres, again

Long war journal



Hakeemullah Mehsud [center right] as he organized the attack on a prison in Bannu.

For some reason, Reuters seems to want to perpetuate the myth that Hakeemullah Mehsud and Waliur Rehman Mehsud, the top two leaders of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, are “at each other’s throats,” a claim that Waliur Rehman himself has denied. Back in January, I debunked the claims, and the long-awaited clash between the two never materialized. You can read about that here.

Eleven months later, Reuters pretty much writes the same story. This time, unnamed Pakistani military sources are making the claims. But in the process of making the case for the split between the two leaders, the Pakistani officials tell an easily demonstrable lie. And “lie” isn’t a term I use easily around here, but in this case, it applies.

While making the case that Hakeemullah is no longer in charge of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan’s operations, Pakistani officials told Reuters the following:

Intelligence officials said Mehsud had not commanded any recent operations, including an August 16 attack on the Minhas Airbase in Pakistan and a suicide attack on a street market in May that killed 24 people.Military sources said Rehman planned the April 15 jail break in Bannu in Pakistan that freed 384 prisoners, including an estimated 200 Taliban members and an al Qaeda-linked militant who had attempted to assassinate former president Pervez Musharraf.

Now, the officials aren’t clear how they know Hakeemullah wasn’t involved in the Minhas suicide assault; it does fit the profile of other attacks he directed.

But the real kicker is the Bannu prison break. We know for a fact that Hakeemullah was involved. How do we know? The Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan released a videotape of the operations, in which both Waliur Rehman and Hakeemullah appeared. And guess what? Hakeemullah himself appears on the videotape where the Taliban are staging to conduct the attack. You can see him there, and you can see his men surrounding him. So we know for certain that Hakeemullah was indeed directly involved in the Bannu prison break. The Pakistani officials who tracked the Bannu prison break would also know this.

Pakistani officials have been promoting a split between Hakeemullah Mehsud and Waliur Rehman Mehsud for years, beginning with the fake battle at the shura to succeed Bailtullah Mehsud, the emir of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan who was killed in an August 2009 drone strike. The battle never happened, yet Pakistani officials insist to this day that it did. We’ve covered this, and other such nonsense, extensively at The Long War Journal.

Dare I say that Pakistani officials are using Reuters and other news agencies as part of a not-so-sophisticated information operation designed to split the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan’s top leadership? It is high time that news organizations see through this patently obvious nonsense.