Recalling reports of Bin Ladin - CIA meeting in July 2001

[JackRiddler]

RE: Purported visit by Bin Laden to Dubai American Hospital on July 4-14, 2001 and meetings during that time with presumed CIA Dubai station chief Larry Mitchell, apparently arranged by Prince Turki, who had been the head of Saudi intelligence for 22 years (and who was forced to resign a week before Sept. 11).

The relevant news stories came from Radio France International (reporter: Richard Labeviere), Le Figaro, The Guardian, The London Times, and others. All of whom stand by their stories. French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir, who says he has verified the story, notes that there would be nothing extraordinary in the idea of the CIA meeting with Bin Ladin. (Except perhaps for certain denialists or apologists for the routine workings of the U.S. empire.)

---

English Translation of LE FIGARO, 31 October 2001
(not 11 October as in the typo at the top of the page)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

PLEASE FOLLOW LINK - FAR TOO DETAILED FOR FOUR-PARAGRAPH SUMMARY...

The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai
by Alexandra Richard
Translated courtesy of Tiphaine Dickson

Le Figaro, 11 October 2001
Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001

(...)

While he was hospitalised, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital room.

A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorised sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta, the CIA agent was called back to headquarters.

(...)

According to Arab diplomatic sources as well as French intelligence, very specific information was transmitted to the CIA with respect to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, including on US soil. A DST report dated 7 September enumerates all the intelligence, and specifies that the order to attack was to come from Afghanistan.

(...)

Contacts between the CIA and bin Laden began in 1979 when, as a representative of his family's business, bin Laden began recruiting volunteers for the Afghan resistance against the Red Army. FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army, and that these explosives had been delivered threee years earlier to Afghan Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army.

In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered "financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "arab friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is then within the logic of "a certain American policy".

---

The original RFI and Le Figaro articles are in French on the following archive page:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Bin-Laden-Met-CIA.htm

Bin Laden Met With CIA Agent in July
Richard Labeviere / Le Figaro 1nov01


---

Archived (terrible) translation and French original of a follow-up article by Labeviere on the RFI site.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/rfi110101.html

Bin Laden and the CIA: Details of the Meeting

by Richard Labeviere
Radio France International
November 1, 2001

http://www.ulg.ac.be/capri/AttentatsUSA/CAPRI_RFI_01_11_01_BebLadenCIAdetails.htm

After the information revealed by RFI and "le Figaro" concerning a meeting last July between Ben Laden and an agent of the CIA with Dubaï, the American agency speaks "about total nonsense". RFI maintains and specifies its information.

The local representative of the CIA which visited Oussama Ben Laden - on July 12 - at the American Hospital of Dubai is named Larry Mitchell. Even thought his business card specifies that he is a "consular agent", every one knows in Dubai, in particular in the small community of expatriots which it works under cover. In light, Larry Mitchell belongs to the "company", in other words the CIA. He does not hide it...

Good expert of the Arab world and especially of the peninsula, Larry Mitchell is a colourful character who often brightens the a little dull evenings of expatriés of Dubai. One of its close relations has habit to say that its exubérance natural plank often "confidential defense." And it is perhaps one of the reasons for which he was recalled to the United States as of last 15 July.

A score of days after the attacks of September 11, in an official statement October 5, 2001, the CIA already was qualifying baseless, the rumours without base of information according to which the information agency had had, in the past of the contacts with Ben Laden and his entourage, in particular at the time of the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It is that this official statement of the CIA is in complete contradiction with the official declarations several representatives of the American administration itself.

(go to that site for more and the French)

---

Up-to-date summary of various stories at Complete 9/11 Timeline, including links to the sources:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a070401dubai#a070401dubai

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Receives Lifesaving Treatment in Dubai, Said to Meet with CIA While There

Bin Laden, America’s most wanted criminal with a $5 million bounty on his head, supposedly receives lifesaving treatment for renal failure from American specialist Dr. Terry Callaway at the American hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden’s personal physician as well as al-Qaeda’s second-in-command), plus several bodyguards. Callaway supposedly treated bin Laden in 1996 and 1998, also in Dubai. Callaway later refuses to answer any questions on this matter. (Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001; Agence France-Presse, 11/1/2001; London Times, 11/1/2001) During his stay, bin Laden is visited by “several members of his family and Saudi personalities,” including Prince Turki al-Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence. (Guardian, 11/1/2001) On July 12, bin Laden reportedly meets with CIA agent Larry Mitchell in the hospital. Mitchell apparently lives in Dubai as an Arab specialist under the cover of being a consular agent. The CIA, the Dubai hospital, and even bin Laden deny the story. The two news organizations that broke the story, Le Figaro and Radio France International, stand by their reporting. (Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001; Radio France International, 11/1/2001) The explosive story is widely reported in Europe, but there are only two, small wire service stories on it in the US. (United Press International, 11/1/2001; Reuters, 11/10/2001) The Guardian claims that the story originated from French intelligence, “which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.” The Guardian adds that during his stay bin Laden is also visited by a second CIA officer. (Guardian, 11/1/2001) In 2003, reporter Richard Labeviere will provide additional details of what he claims happened in a book entitled “The Corridors of Terror.” He claims he learned about the meeting from a contact in the Dubai hospital. He claims the event was confirmed in detail by a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain. This prince claimed the meeting was arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal. The prince said, “By organizing this meeting…Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between (bin Laden) and the CIA on one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their hostilities against American interests.” In exchange, the CIA and Saudis would allow bin Laden to return to Saudi Arabia and live freely there. The meeting is said to be a failure. (Reuters, 11/14/2003) On July 15, Larry Mitchell reportedly returns to CIA headquarters to report on his meeting with bin Laden. (Radio France International, 11/1/2001) French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It “is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.” (Le Figaro (Paris), 11/1/2001) A CIA spokesman calls the entire account of bin Laden’s stay at Dubai “sheer fantasy.” (Reuters, 11/14/2003)

[Bolo Boffin]

1. If true, what do you think this proves? n/t

[JackRiddler]

3. That there was never a real 9/11 investigation in the US

What an irrelevant reach your question is. What do you think I'm going to say?

If true, obviously, it "proves" what it says: a CIA man or two met with Bin Ladin six weeks before Sept. 11. This is quite interesting in itself, except to the braindead, and is therefore worth recalling all on its own. In turn, obviously, it raises the question of what was said at these meetings, and of what other contacts existed between Laden and intelligence agencies (U.S., Western, Saudi, Pakistani, etc.) in the 1990-2001 period and beyond. And like so much else, it demonstrates that the 9/11 Commission is full of bullshit. Or would you like to suggest that, if true, this wouldn't be relevant to an investigation of September 11th? Would a real investigation not want to ask questions about it?

(Quick: change the subject!)

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between (bin Laden) and the CIA on one fundamental

"Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between (bin Laden) and the CIA on one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their hostilities against American interests.” In exchange, the CIA and Saudis would allow bin Laden to return to Saudi Arabia and live freely there. The meeting is said to be a failure."

So when the CIA meets Osama to stop his hostilities, you are proving what?

[OKthatsIT]

7. What? While giving Bin Laden 2 weeks of FREE MEDICAL care?

2 weeks of care, paid by you and me? A heinous criminal who just killed hundreds in Kenya? And don't forget the Coleman...how many sailors died?

Did you put up this webpage?
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Coz, if you did, you left out MURDERED THOUSANDS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001!

[Bolo Boffin]

9. I don't even accept that this happened, OTI.

My point is, even if it's true, what does it prove?

[OKthatsIT]

23. Don't you understand 'the obvious' of this scene?

IF you can't understand the outrageousness of this scene, you can't discern the importance...consequence, significance of 9/11 at all.

I don't understand why have you parked yourself on this Forum.

[SDuderstadt]

33. The "Coleman"??

I think you mean the "Cole". Why do I doubt you have a grasp of the actual facts?

[OKthatsIT]

69. You always diss everybody who doesnt agree with you

Which is everybody around here.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

10. How interesting.

If so, why weren't these reports investigated?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. I missed your answer to my question. Again. n/t

[JackRiddler]

12. Let me help you with that then...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=197990&mesg_id=198012

[Bolo Boffin]

13. So your position is that a possible CIA-Osama meeting in Dubai to discuss

ways of ending hostilities proves that the events of 9/11 haven't been full investigated.

And that's all?

[JackRiddler]

14. My position is that a translation of post 3 above is not needed from you.

So why didn't the 9/11 Commission deal with this international blockbuster of a news story, to confirm or falsify it?

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Yet here I am, on a public message board.

If you don't want to solicit discussion, post your bullshit privately.

Now:

"why didn't the 9/11 Commission deal with this international blockbuster of a news story, to confirm or falsify it?"

You will present your evidence that they did not.

[BeachBaby]

16. He has just as much right to post information.....

as you have the right to ignore it.

As for you asking Jack to "present evidence that they did not" is the quintessential reply from OCTers. Asking someone to prove a negative. Also known as a strawman, I believe.

He stated a point. If you refute it, provide evidence that he's wrong. That's how it works in court, anyway.

Damn - I really need to take advantage of my "ignore" features. Goodbye to you.

*poof*

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Where have I stated that he has no right to post anything here?

:rofl:

Jack says that the 9/11 Commission ignored this story. I'd like to see his evidence for the claim. It's likely that he's going to point to no references in the 9/11 Commission Report to the story.

This is not evidence that the Commission didn't look into the story to confirm it or deny it. They certainly talked to Sibel Edmonds. Where is she in the report?

That shows that the 9/11 Commission could have conceivably looked into this story after all, to confirm it or deny it.

Furthermore, JACK'S OWN SOURCE MATERIAL gives an incredibly bland reason for the meeting, one that I've highlighted. If the 9/11 Commission did look into the story and determined it false or determined it true with that highlighted reason for the meeting, then it's no wonder it didn't show up in the 9/11 CR. It's completely irrelevant.

[SDuderstadt]

34. No, that's not "how it works in court"...

Jack is being asked for evidence of his claim. Bolo doesn't have to disprove it. Sheesh.

[BeachBaby]

38. Huh.

Maybe you better look through the thread again.

Good ol' bolo was demanding that Jack prove that something DID NOT happen.

Like I said, ya can't prove a negative.

You remind me of my mother (a very devout Christian) telling me (an agnostic/atheist) to prove that God DOES NOT exist.

But I'm tired of arguing with people like you and bolo - if there's one thing I'm positive about, it's that the only reason you come into this forum is to mock and criticize those who aren't impressed in the least by the 9/11 Commission Lies.

Until you realize that the ONLY reason you believe what happened that day was because that's what you were told, you will never get to the point that many here have reached. Like I said to bolo - believe what you want. Not my problem. Whatever gets you through the night. Goodbye to you.

Oh - and "ignore".

*Poof*

[SDuderstadt]

39. Excuse me....

Here is Jack's claim (in the form of a question):


"why didn't the 9/11 Commission deal with this international blockbuster of a news story, to confirm or falsify it?"

I'm sorry...that's the original claim. Bolo asking Jack to prove his claim is NOT asking him to prove a negative. BTW, it is (despite claims to the contrary) possible to prove a negative, at least in some cases. I can prove that 2 + 2 isn't 5, by proving that 2 + 2 is 4.

BTW, let's get one other thing straight. In your post, you said, "Until you realize that the ONLY reason you believe what happened that day was because that's what you were told, you will never get to the point that many here have reached. Like I said to bolo - believe what you want. Not my problem. Whatever gets you through the night. Goodbye to you."

How the fuck do you know that? Do you honestly claim to know my state of mind? How do you know "what I was told"? Do you honestly think I just accept what I read without reasoning my way through it, subjecting it to Logic, doing necessary research and drawing reasonable conclusions? For the freakin' record, I despise the Bush administration. But the 9/11 "truth" movement has had nearly seven years to develop a coherent, cohesive narrative of 9/11 and has failed miserably. I used to get my hopes up because I had many of the same questions initially but, one by one, those questions have been answered. The most frustrating thing about the "truth" movement is they advance claims that don't even remotely make logical sense but cannot see how illogical they are. When they can overcome that barrier, perhaps they won't be met with hoots and derision. Put me on ignore if you choose, but don't later claim it was me who ran away from the debate.

[OKthatsIT]

27. BECAUSE the 9/11 OMISSION was SELECTIVE

TO CONTROL all opinion.

You aren't fooling anybody with this bullcrap, propagandist doublespeak. You waste our time with saying nothing(s). you have a unique way of say nothing at all. you only want to demolish any hint of Truth, any diagnostic of imbalance, any open forum which considers thinking 'outside the box'. Your job is to deflect, dissolve, and disinfo ...even when you know nothing about it. You just yank out your 'tactical phrase' book and have a go.

[SDuderstadt]

35. This is funny.

You're attempting to use "psychic foreclosure" to cut off debate, all the while accusing Bolo of wanting to "demolish any hint of 'Truth'". Priceless. BTW, I think you need to quit calling other members "propagandists".

[OKthatsIT]

68. I'll call it as I see it....why?, feeling soft today?

I'm not attempting to do anything here but speak the TRUTH...which means you have no psychic skills, doesn't it.

[SDuderstadt]

72. If what you're speaking is the "Truth"...

then you'd be able to back it up with hard evidence, which you cannot seem to do. That makes your yammerings merely your opinion.

I should have known you'd be unfamiliar with the phrase "psychic foreclosure". It has nothing to do with psychics and everything to do with an attempt to close off debate by treating the debate topic as if it is undebatable. Of course, it is very debatable and all your bleatings don't add anything to the debate. It's funny to watch you call people more educated and informed than yourself "sheep". Tu quo?

[lovepg]

78. God SD if you are not proof of the Damage High school debate teams do,,,

to people i do not know what is!

[SDuderstadt]

82. Well, add that to the list of all the other things....

you don't know, dude.

[petgoat]

19. It proves (if the reports are true) that at a time when Osama bin Laden was the most-wanted

terrorist in the world, the CIA was negotiating with him instead of capturing him.

[wildbilln864]

20. exactly! nt

:hi:

[petgoat]

21. The claim is made that Clinton ordered the CIA to kill Osama

but they farmed the job out to Afghan tribesmen who lacked enthusiasm for the assignment.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Interesting.

Has Osama himself ever weighed in on this purported trip?

[petgoat]

25. Why should he? Do you think he wants his al Qaeda minions to know he's CIA? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Interesting.

So what does the American hospital in Dubai say about this two week visit?

[zforce]

40. Good question

"So what does the American hospital in Dubai say about this two week visit?"


But obviously, they don't have anything to say...

FBI protects Osama Bin Laden's ''Right To Privacy'' in Document Release

www.judicialwatch.org
Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has invoked privacy right protections on behalf of al Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden. In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2000))



Before invoking privacy protections for Osama bin Laden under Exemption 6, the FBI should have conducted a balancing “test” of the public's right to disclosure against the individual's right to privacy. Many of the references in the redacted documents cite publicly available news articles from sources such as The Washington Post and Associated Press. Based on its analysis of the news stories cited in the FBI report, Judicial Watch was able to determine that bin Laden’s name was redacted from the document, including newspaper headlines in the footnoted citations.



“It is dumbfounding that the United States government has placed a higher priority on the supposed privacy rights of Osama bin Laden than the public’s right to know what happened in the days following the September 11 (*or before) terrorist attacks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is difficult for me to imagine a greater insult to the American people, especially those whose loved ones were murdered by bin Laden on that day.”

*inserted remark

[SDuderstadt]

41. That's funny....

I went to the JudicialWatch website, searched for any references to bin Laden and nothing like you claim in your post came up. Do you have a specific link before I call bullshit?

[zforce]

42. Its called "research".

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5286.shtml

[SDuderstadt]

43. Ummm, read the actual FBI document again...

and it says absolutely nothing about protecting bin Laden's hospital records. I'm calling bullshit.

[zforce]

44. the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden

which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files”

[SDuderstadt]

45. No, that's what JudicialWatch says...

where is their proof for this claim? Because they said the FBI did?

[zforce]

47. The evidence for exemption 6 are two fold...

1: Judicial watch has announced today that it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has invoked privacy right protections on behalf of al Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden

2: The redacted documents themselves which omit the name of USAma pointing to exemption 6.

[SDuderstadt]

50. This is called "begging the question"...

surely there must be a letter to JudicialWatch from the FBI stating they would not release records based upon Exemption 6. Either JudicialWatch needs to produce it, or otherwise it is just them saying it. Sorry. I'm not taking JudicialWatch's word for anything. You know they're a relatively far right organization, right? Take a look at some of their causes.

[JackRiddler]

48. Does it occur to you that lawyers occasionally cite the law correctly?

Exemption 6 under FOIA law - google is your friend.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption6.htm

Now, this may not even relate to OBL's hospital records in Dubai, which are outside the USG's purview. But it stands that JW's FOIA request for information on OBL was denied under Exemption 6, i.e. OBL's right to privacy. (Unless you think JW made up the FOIA request and the FBI response?)

[SDuderstadt]

51. Jack...

I am asking simply to see the response from the FBI, not merely take JudicialWatch's word for it. Why is this so hard. JudicialWatch is making a claim and I am merely asking for proof of it, not what JudicialWatch says.

[JackRiddler]

52. Write to them and ask why they don't post a scanned page...

That would be fine by me, and they should. But basically you're saying you don't believe them when they report on their own FOIA request. They distort on behalf of their political spin campaigns, but I doubt they're lying about straight up facts in which they are directly involved.

[zforce]

54. Indeed, espcially when its evidence against a so called "right-wing" govt.n/t

[SDuderstadt]

56. In other words...

they offer ZERO proof of their claim. Exactly what I thought. I'm not looking up anything. I am asking the poster to provide such proof. Otherwise, I am just going to start making claims then, when challenged for proof, say "look it up!"

[zforce]

60. They do offer proof-the redacted documents.n/t

[SDuderstadt]

62. Bullshit...

the documents do nothing to support their claim...read the frickin' thing...it says NOTHING like what they claim....it has NOTHING to do with any hospital stay by bin Laden. It's talking about his family.

[zforce]

65. Of course they support the claim for exemption

The fact that USAma's name was omitted from those very documents points to the gov taking liberty to protect his privacy. For if there were no privacy issues, then his name would be there for the world to see.

Thus, the claim is supported by evidence, unless you have another explanation for the redaction.

Anyhow, if it makes you feel more comfortable I will call or write Judicial Watch and attempt to get absolute proof for the exemption.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Let me make sure I get this straight....

We're not talking about redaction. We're talking about the FBI reputedly declining to provide JW with documents regarding a supposed hospital stay at an American hospital in Dubai. All I am saying is that JW has provided ZERO evidence of that, thus the claim that redaction of material that has ZERO to do with any hospital stay doesn't have a damn thing to do with that contention. If your claim is that JW could prove that the hospital stay actually happened but they are prevented from doing so by the FBI declining to provide actual documents to that effect, then you need to do something more substantial than point to a document that has ZERO to do with said hospital stay, redacted or not. You have no idea what the source of that document is and under what circumstances it was provided to or obtained by JW, other than what they claim. Are you saying that we can conclude that JW was denied documents supposedly because the FBI was more interested in protecting OBL's privacy? Do you realize how silly that sounds? What privacy protection is a non-US citizen entitled to in a criminal matter?

Here's the bottom line. JW's claim that OBL's privacy was paramount to the FBI is TOTALLY unsubstantiated by anything they have provided so far. You need to go back and research JW's actions during the Clinton impeachment if you want to see what kind of an organization they actually are. Until JW provides something from the FBI denying them access to OBL's supposed "hospital stay", JW's claim is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. For the life of me, I don't understand how you think provision of a redacted, innocuous document proves your claim or their claim. In Logic, what you're doing is called an "unwarranted conclusion".

[lovepg]

79. Oh why wait its never stopped you before?

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Interesting inserted remark.

The alleged hospital visit happened before 9/11. According to the Judicial Watch documents, the right to privacy was invoked about events in the days following 9/11.

You had to add the words "or before" to make this JW thing apply at all. The JW people have nothing at all about Osama in the Dubai hospital.

:rofl:

Furthermore, in checking out the Dubai story at Mr. Thompson's website, it seems that all the available stories are merely citing the single Le Figaro article. The Guardian article is simply a report on what Le Figaro said! Of course they could "stand by that story" as Jack so righteously proclaimed -- all they are saying is that Le Figaro said something!

:rofl:

Is there any other source besides this? Is there any participant in these events that says it happened at all? The hospital? Osama? The CIA? Anyone?

[zforce]

59. We can't be that desperate?

Obviously, if the FBI generally invoked exemption 6 on "USAma binladen's personal files" that would naturally include all files, including those that followed 911 and those that came before..its just that Tom Fitton was specifically referring to files that occured after.

"It is dumbfounding that the United States government has placed a higher priority on the supposed privacy rights of Osama bin Laden than the public’s right to know what happened in the days following the September 11 terrorist attacks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.



Can we?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. I'm not desperate enough to insert phrases into my quotes to prove my point yet. n/t

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Except Fitton does not offer proof of his claim...

as I have previously asserted. He simply says so and we're supposed to believe him?

[jberryhill]

46. And which, if successful, would be more effective, Pet? /nt

[JackRiddler]

73. Before you look for innocent explanations of the meeting...

Wouldn't you prefer to know if and what actually happened?

You can't wave a magic wand and say, "my expectation is..." and that closes the case.

(Always in a fashion that exculpates the CIA? As though their history is not primarily as a criminal organization, by definition - they get to go around the law as the executive's private army - and by practice: the hundreds of crimes they've actually done all around the world, from the days of fixing elections to the Chile coup to the days of "renditions.")

No investigation, no disclosure = no knowledge of a very interesting - indeed suspicious - event.

From the Le Figaro:

"According to Arab diplomatic sources as well as French intelligence, very specific information was transmitted to the CIA with respect to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, including on US soil. A DST report dated 7 September enumerates all the intelligence, and specifies that the order to attack was to come from Afghanistan."

[wildbilln864]

74. exactly. Thank you.

:yourock:

[BeachBaby]

6. Jack, Jack, Jack.....

THANK YOU for posting this. I am not sure how you came across it, but I'm just glad someone found it.

I love research - it's what I do for a living. And I've been finding that, no matter what road I take on the 9/11 research, all the roads lead right back to the relationship the US/CIA/BushAdmin/BushFamily has had with OBL/SaudiArabia/Bandar/UAE/Dubai. My focus has never been on how/why the towers fell, or the physics behind the Pentagon strike. While I am quite curious to those aspects of the event, I see alot of that as a moot point. It happened - and I want to know WHO made it happen.

AGAIN - THANK YOU!!!!! :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower

Don't take my word for it. It won a Pulitzer.

If you want to know how and why Al Qaeda pulled off those attacks, that's the place to start.

[noise]

24. The Looming Tower is not the definitive

account of the 9/11 attacks. One theory discussed in the book was the idea that CIA was attempting to recruit al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar and that is why they kept the knowledge of their presence in the US from the FBI until late August. IMO, this is a pretty weak theory. Are we to believe CIA didn't care what these al Qaeda operatives were doing in the US AFTER the Cole attack? How can Tenet and Clarke claim they were extremely worried about an attack yet fail to make sure the agency tasked with preventing a terrorist attack on US soil had the names of KNOWN al Qaeda operatives with links to the Cole attack?

Wright says that CIA conduct in regards to the Cole investigation was basically obstruction of justice. According to Wright, FBI agent Ali Soufan made three requests that were passed on to CIA by the FBI. He didn't get an answer to his queries until after 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. O RLY?

What would you consider to be a more definitive account than Wright's?

And please include your reasons in this recommendation. I will expect a volume with more interviews, at the very least, from a person fluent in Arabic and who conducted the interviews himself, just as Wright did.

And it should be a more recognized volume by experts, and it needs to have won a few more prizes than Looming Tower:

* Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction (2007)
* PEN USA Award for Research Nonfiction (2007)
* National Book Award Nominee (2007)
* Lionel Gelber Prize (2007)
* J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize (2007)
* Los Angeles Times Book Festival Award for History (2006)
* Carr P. Collins Award for Nonfiction (2007)
* Investigative Reporters and Editors Medal (2006)
* New York Public Library Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism (2007)

I await your recommendation with great anticipation.

[noise]

30. There isn't a single book

that thoroughly covers every aspect of 9/11. I recommend people read several books:

The Looming Tower by Wright

Perfect Soldiers by McDermott

1000 Years for Revenge by Lance

Triple Cross by Lance

The Man Who Warned America by Weiss

The Commission by Shenon

All 'non conspiracy' books that help one understand 9/11. What one finds is that there are aspects in one book that aren't discussed in others. For example, Lance's book on Ali Mohamed. I don't think he was mentioned in The Looming Tower. The Man Who Warned America goes into greater detail regarding O'Neill's story.

The Road to 9/11 by Scott and Crossing the Rubicon by Ruppert go into deep state explanations for the attacks.

[Flatulo]

32. Wright does spend a good deal of time on Ali Mohammed.

Wright maintains that Zawahiri ordered Mohammed to penetrate the CIA, which he did, working for the Americans in Germany. He was also a member of the Egyptian al Jihad movement.

He fancied himself as something of a James Bond character.

Mohammed used his US Army experience to train bin Laden's bodyguards. He also gathered intellignece used in the US embassy bombings and has plead guilty and awaits sentencing.

[paulthompson]

36. Looming Tower

The Looming Tower most certainly is not the definitive book and in fact is deeply flawed. The problem with Looming Tower is the same problem that helps explain why our media is in such a sad state today: a fawning relationship with sources. Basically, journalists kiss ass to get their sources and don't dare offend them as part of the deal of getting them to talk. Essentially, they are little more than palace scribes.

We can see this clearly and repeatedly with The Looming Tower. The most obvious case is with Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, one of Osama bin Laden's brothers in law. Wright uses Khalifa often as a source about bin Laden's life. However, Khalifa claims that he had a falling out with bin Laden in the late 1980s over bin Laden's terrorist methods and rejected terrorism completely. Wright accepts this hook, line, and sinker, and doesn't even mention as a caveat the possibility that Khalifa was involved in terrorism and with bin Laden from the late 1980s onwards. The most cursory Google search will show a lot of an incredible list of evidence, so there's no way Wright was ignorant. Probably Wright made a deal with Khalifa where Khalifa agreed to talk about bin Laden at length if Wright agreed not to mention all the terrorist stuff.

I've got an entire section of my timeine dedicated just to Khalifa's terrorist ties. The idea that he is completely innocent is absolutely absurd:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&other_al-qaeda_operatives=complete_911_timeline_mohammed_jamal_khalifa

But that's just the most obvious example. We see this failure to criticize sources again and again in Wrights' book. For instance, he relies on many US intelligence sources, especially from the FBI, even making use of John Miller, who is head of public relations for the FBI. What we're basically getting is an interesting story with a lot of good research, but a story the FBI and other agencies have absolutely no problem with, because most of the really critical information has been omitted.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. You will be so good, Mr. Thompson, to give us the definite book's title?

Or at least the book that is more definitive than Mr. Wright's, that will stand in until a better book is written?

[JackRiddler]

53. And who is to say that it's been written?

You seem to forget that the best so far may not be good enough.

But until you've read this:



http://www.amazon.com/War-Truth-Disinformation-Anatomy-Terrorism/dp/1566565960

--you don't get to sneer at it.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. So once again, Jack...

you got nothing?

ETA: waiwaiwaiwaiwaiWAIT!

Is that book written by the guy who interviewed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The interview where KSM spilled the beans about the 9/11 attacks?

And you're now ENDORSING him???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

EATA: Ah, no, sorry, that was Fouda. My bad. Sigh...

[JackRiddler]

58. Just take the night off. nt

[OKthatsIT]

5. Use your mind...connect those nerve cells

They say the more you use your brain...the better it is for healthy tissues and nerves later in life. 'Thinking' helps!

[OKthatsIT]

2. Hey..That's a nice page of info! Thanks!

I appreciate someone who really does this...saves time when its all organized like this.

Mind if I copy and paste, where needed?

[JackRiddler]

31. Copy and paste?

Sure, that's all I did, with a few comments.

[wildbilln864]

18. Great post, thanks Jack! nt

:hi:

[noise]

26. The Gulf prince's comment is bizarre.

The CIA and Saudis were negotiating with Bin Laden? It comes across as if the CIA/Saudis and Bin Laden were equals. IMO, if Bin Laden was truly a problem for the Saudis they would have killed him. They could have blamed it on the Northern Alliance.

This meeting relates to 'deep state' politics which the 9/11 Commission wasn't about to broach. Instead the 9/11 Commission wanted the public to accept the concept of monolithic nationalism...that everybody in the US is on the same page. It's a nice fantasy but it doesn't fit the reality.

[Grateful for Hope]

37. Jack, you are a treasure

Thank you for posting this.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

66. And how about CBS News reported that on 9/10/2001, Bin Laden was in a Pakistan Military Hospital?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

[OKthatsIT]

71. Good Link....The ISI pampers Bin Laden funded by ????

anyone?

[noise]

75. Where is the network media on this story?

Aren't we told that a story like this would make someones career? Why would the media not report such a huge story?

Something doesn't add up.

[MinM]

76. The bin Ladens

[wildbilln864]

77. Interesting, thanks...

I wonder which is Salem, UBL's brother and GWB's business partner. :banghead:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

81. Which one sold Mary Kay?